Docstoc

20120112

Document Sample
20120112 Powered By Docstoc
					                                               NO. 3
                   JOURNAL

                      of the

     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      of the

      STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA




REGULAR SESSION BEGINNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012
                      ________


           THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012
             (STATEWIDE SESSION)
                      Thursday, January 12, 2012
                         (Statewide Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

  The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
  Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E.
Seastrunk, Jr., as follows:

   Our thought for today is from Ecclesiastes 1:9: “What has been is
what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is
nothing new under the sun.”
   Let us pray. Faithful God, help us to know that You are always
beside us, no matter what situations or what trials we face. Grant these
Representatives the courage of their convictions and give them
integrity and wisdom to do what is right. Help them discern the best
path to take. Bless our leaders of both State and Nation. Lead them to
the best decisions. Protect our defenders of freedom as they protect us.
Heal the wounds of our brave warriors, those seen and those unseen.
Hear our prayer, O Lord. Amen.

  Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the
SPEAKER.

  After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the
SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

                       MOTION ADOPTED
 Rep. TALLON moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in
memory of Ann T. Berline of Spartanburg, which was agreed to.

                       REPORT RECEIVED
  The following was received:

                Judicial Merit Selection Commission
                 Report of Candidate Qualifications
                            for Fall 2011

Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, January 12, 2012
Date and Time:
Final Report Issued:      Noon, Tuesday, January 17, 2012

                                   1
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments
until Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at Noon.

                 Judicial Merit Selection Commission

January 12, 2012
Members of the SC General Assembly
SC State House
Columbia, SC

Dear Members of the General Assembly:
                Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission’s Report
of Candidate Qualifications. This Report is designed to assist you in
determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with
ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench.
In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated
all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The
Commission found all candidates discussed in this Report to be qualified.
                The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means
that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office
and the Commission’s evaluative criteria. The attached Report details each
candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission’s evaluative
criteria.
                Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your
commitment until 12:00 Noon on January 17, 2012. Members of the
General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction,
announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate’s
qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until Tuesday,
January 17, 2012. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should,
orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate’s candidacy until the
time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's
Report of Candidate Qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the
pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact
the Commission office at 212-6623.
   Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman



  [HJ]                            2
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                Judicial Merit Selection Commission

January 12, 2012
Members of the SC General Assembly
SC State House
Columbia, SC

Dear Fellow Members:
   This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the
December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial
candidate’s contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third
parties contacting members on a candidate’s behalf. It is also to remind you of
these issues for the Fall 2011 screening.
   Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions
concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or
implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the
release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission
(Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the
General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a
candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-
70(C) provides that “the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an
announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the
candidate detailing the candidate’s qualifications” (emphasis added).
Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding
their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are
legislators.
   In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means
no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of
communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the
48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission’s report. The
Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have
expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate
qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of
the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction,
announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates’
qualifications.
   The Commission would again like to remind members of the General
Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense
and must be considered when determining a candidate’s fitness for judicial
office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of


  [HJ]                           3
                     THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or
Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable.
  Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter
pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane
O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 212-6629 (T-Th).

Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr.               Glenn F. McConnell
Chairman                         Vice-Chairman

                           INTRODUCTION
    The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to
consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report
details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each
candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative
criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect
July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of
the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission’s
finding of “qualified” or “not qualified” is binding on the General
Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members
of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates
and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.
    The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten
members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has
continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The
Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to
service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were
posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with
more information about candidates and the candidates’ thought
processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has
also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's
experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she
is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have
familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer,
and feels that candidates’ responses should indicate their familiarity
with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
    The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial
Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of
our judiciary play such an important role in people’s personal and
professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians
should have a voice in the selection of the state’s judges. It was this

  [HJ]                            4
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission
to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These
committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences
(lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various
organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their
racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission
on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee
interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed
other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate
either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its
own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a
report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission’s
evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool
for further investigation of the candidate if the committee’s report so
warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the
Commission’s report for your review.
    The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each
candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds
public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide
variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the
following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical
fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation,
physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The
Commission's investigation includes the following:
   (1) survey of the bench and bar;
   (2) SLED and FBI investigation;
   (3) credit investigation;
   (4) grievance investigation;
   (5) study of application materials;
   (6) verification of ethics compliance;
   (7) search of newspaper articles;
   (8) conflict of interest investigation;
   (9) court schedule study;
   (10) study of appellate record;
   (11) court observation; and
   (12) investigation of complaints.
   While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as
to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an
obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on
which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the
Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the

  [HJ]                           5
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its
questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge
and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial
Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of
ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of
gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the
individual decisions of the state’s judicial system absent credible
allegations of a candidate’s violations of the Judicial Canons of
Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the
Commission’s nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate’s
fitness for judicial service.
    The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of
legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be
applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to
codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and
excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in
another.
    Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons
governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a
written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in
advance of each candidate’s staff interview. These issues were no
longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a
concern or question was raised during the investigation of the
candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate’s pledge to
uphold the Canons, etc. is his or her completed and sworn
questionnaire.
   Written examinations of the candidates’ knowledge of judicial practice
and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff
and graded on a “blind” basis by a panel of four persons designated by the
Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice
and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either
the “failed to meet expectations” or “met expectations” category. The
Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the
candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
    This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and
public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously,
as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's
courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening
process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report, as we
believe it will help you make a more informed decision.


  [HJ]                            6
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the
qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and Administrative
Law Court.

                     SUPREME COURT
                 QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

                   The Honorable Kaye G. Hearn
                             Seat 4

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Justice Hearn meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court
Justice.
   Justice Hearn was born in 1950. She is 61 years old and a resident
of Conway, SC. Justice Hearn provided in her application that she has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Justice Hearn.
   Justice Hearn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Justice Hearn reported that she not made any campaign expenditures.
   Justice Hearn testified she has not:
   (a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to
screening;
   (b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
   (c) asked third persons to contact members of the General
Assembly prior to screening.
   Justice Hearn testified that she is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:


  [HJ]                           7
                THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   The Commission found Justice Hearn to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Justice Hearn described her past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
2006
(a) Fourth Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;
(b) Trial and Appellate Advocacy 1/28/06;
(c) S.C. Family Court Summit 7/06;
(d) Mini Summit on Justice for Children 8/22/06;
(e) 2006 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference 8/23/06;
(f) National Council of Chief Judges’ Conference 11/06;
(g) Family Court – Procedural 12/14/06;
2007
(h) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/07;
(i) 5th Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/07;
(j) NC/SC Appellate Judges' Conference 3/01/07;
(k) 2007 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference 8/22/07;
(l) Family Court – Procedural 10/11/2007;
(m) National Council of Chief Judges’ Conference 11/07;
2008
(n) Family Law Section 1/25/08;
(o) S.C. Bar 6th Annual Civil Law Update 1/25/08;
(p) 2008 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference 8/20/08;
(q) 2008 SC Family Court Bench/Bar 12/25/08;
2009
(r) State Constitutional Reform 1/15/09;
(s) 7th Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/09;
(t) 2009 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference 8/19/09;
(u) SCWLA / NCAWA Conference 9/30/09;
(v) Defense Trial Lawyers Conference 11/09;
(w) 2009 S.C. Family Court Seminar 12/10/09;
2010
(x) Civil Law Update 1/22/10;
(y) Criminal Law Update 1/22/10;
(z) 2010 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference 8/18/10;
(aa) S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar 12/9/10;
2011
(bb) 2011 South Carolina Bar Convention 1/20/11;
(cc) SC Supreme Court Historical Society, 2011 Colloquium
5/20/11.

  [HJ]                       8
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Justice Hearn reported that she has taught the following law related
courses:
(a) Hearsay Rule in the Family Court, Columbia, SC July             21,
1979;
(b) Order Writing for Circuit Judges, Columbia, SC Aug. 1979;
(c) Order Writing for Family Court Judges, Columbia, SC Nov. 16,
1979;
(d) Moderator, Organizer, and Presenter at People’s
   Law School, Horry Georgetown Tech 1980-1984;
(e) Appellate Court Writs, Columbia, SC June 19, 1980;
(f) Order Writing for Law Clerks, Columbia, SC SC Aug. 1980;
(g) Order Writing for Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys, Columbia, SC
Aug. 1981;
(h) Rules and Procedures of the Family Court,
   SC Trial Lawyers Convention, Hilton Head, SC Aug. 20, 1981;
(i) Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Greenville, SC Apr. 2, 1982;
(j) Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Charleston, SC May 1982;
(k) Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Florence, SC June 25, 1982;
(l) Appellate Advocacy Preservation of the Record, Columbia, SC
   July 15, 1983;
(m) Opinion Writing for Appellate Judges, Columbia, SC Oct. 1983;
(n) Separation and Antenuptial Agreements, Columbia, SC Oct. 12,
1984;
(o) Effective Order Writing, Columbia, SC Dec. 6-7, 1984;
(p) Order Writing, New Family Court Judges’ School, Columbia, SC
   Feb. 28, 1985;
(q) Order Writing, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC Mar. 1985;
(r) Order Writing, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC August 1985;
(s) Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update, and Alimony
Perspective–Co-Moderator, Columbia, SC Nov. 19-20, 1987;
(t) Practical Problems in Legal Ethics, Columbia, SC Dec. 1987;
(u) Order Writing, New Family Court Judges’ School, Columbia, SC
   July 21-22, 1988;
(v) Children’s Rights, SCDSS Family Violence Conference,
Columbia, SC Mar. 19-20, 1990;
(w) Judge’s Perspective on Adoption, Columbia, SC April 6, 1990;
(x) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC Aug. 1990;
(y) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March
1991;
(z) The Future of Families in the Courts, Greenville, SC Apr.         4,
1991;

  [HJ]                           9
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(aa) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC Aug. 1991;
(bb) Order Writing, New Alimony Statute, Abuse and Neglect, and
Contempt Moderator, New Family Court Judges’ School, Columbia,
SC Aug. 27-28, 1991;
(cc) Domestic Violence, Magistrate’s JCLE, Columbia, SC
November 8, 1991;
(dd) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March
1992;
(ee) Adoption, Abuse and Neglect– Moderator, New Family Court
Judges’ School, Columbia, SC July 28, 1992;
(ff) Separation Agreements, Columbia, SC Dec. 1992;
(gg) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC May       17,
1993;
(hh) The Future of Family Court, SC Trial Lawyers Convention,
   Hilton Head, SC August 18, 1993;
(ii) Suppression Hearings in Family Court, Solicitors’ Conference,
Myrtle Beach, SC Oct. 4, 1993;
(jj) How the Family Court is Using ADR and Mediation in the
Courtroom, SC Bar Mid-Winter Meeting, Charleston, SC Jan.       21,
1994;
(kk) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC February 28,
1994;
(ll) Juvenile Delinquency, Family Court Judges’ School, Columbia,
SC June 24, 1994;
(mm) Family Court Rules, Columbia, SC July 29, 1994;
(nn) Waiver Hearings, Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar, Columbia,
SC Aug. 19, 1994;
(oo) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March      6,
1995;
(pp) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC May       16,
1995;
(qq) The Hot Evidentiary Issues Under the New Rules, The Judicial
Conference, Columbia, SC Aug. 24, 1995;
(rr) Judicial Perspective on Briefs and Oral Arguments,     Ethical
Issues Facing Family Law Practitioners, Columbia, SC Dec.       19,
1995;
(ss) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March 5,
1996;
(tt) The Future of Appellate Courts, Seminar for New     Appellate
Court Judges, Columbia, SC May 1, 1996;


  [HJ]                         10
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(uu) Preserving the Trial Record, Circuit Court Judges Seminar, Fripp
Island, SC May 1996;
(vv) Preserving the Trial Record, The Judicial Conference, Columbia,
SC Aug. 22, 1996;
(ww) Ethics: A View from the Bench, SC Public Defenders’
Conference, North Myrtle Beach, SC Sept. 30, 1996;
(xx) A View from the Bench, Ethics for Family Law Practitioners,
Columbia, SC Dec. 10, 1996;
(yy) Appellate Writs and Motions Practice, SC Bar Mid-Winter
Meeting, Charleston, SC Jan. 25, 1997;
(zz) Family Law Update, The Judicial Conference Columbia, SC
Aug. 22, 1997;
(aaa) Perspectives on Judging, SC Student Trial Lawyers
Association, Columbia, SC Oct. 1, 1997;
(bbb) The Rules of Evidence and The Dead Man’s Statute, SC
Probate Judges Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC Oct. 13, 1997;
(ccc) Automatic Stay, Petitions for Supersedeas, Family         Court
Seminar, Conway, SC Oct. 21, 1997;
(ddd) Appellate Ethics Update, Ethics Seminar, Columbia, SC Nov.
14, 1997;
(eee) Order Writing, Probate Judges Conference Columbia, SC
Feb. 26, 1998;
(fff) Important Rules of Appellate Practice SC Practice and Procedure
Update Columbia, SC March 20, 1998;
(ggg) Comparative Negligence Developments SC Tort Law Update,
Columbia, SC Sept. 25, 1998;
(hhh) Preserving Evidentiary Matters on Appeal Winning      Evidence,
Columbia, SC Feb. 19, 1999;
(iii) Appellate Issues, Court of Appeals Bench/Bar           seminar,
Columbia, SC October 22, 1999;
(jjj) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC May 2000;
(kkk) Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar seminar, Columbia,
SC Dec. 1, 2000;
(lll) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March 2001;
(mmm) Issues in Comparative Negligence, 2001 South Carolina Tort
Law Update, Columbia, SC September 28, 2001;
(nnn) Appellate Issues, Ring Out the Old, Ring In the New,
Columbia, SC Dec. 21, 2001;
(ooo) Appellate Issues: Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC May          15,
2002;


  [HJ]                          11
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(ppp) Appellate Issues: Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, SC Dec.
6, 2002;
(qqq) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC March         10,
2003;
(rrr) Oral Argument, South Carolina Trial Lawyers’ Association
Convention 2003;
(sss) Now we have Campbell, what do we do with it? South Carolina
Defense Trial Attorneys’ Association, Sea Island, GA Nov. 7, 2003;
(ttt) Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, SC Dec. 5,
2003;
(uuu) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC March          8,
2004;
(vvv) Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation July 15, 2004;
(www) Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners, Columbia,
SC September 24, 2004;
(xxx) Wofford and the Law, Panel Leader for Legal Symposium,
   Spartanburg, SC September 25, 2004;
(yyy) Appellate Issues, SC Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, SC
   December 3, 2004;
(zzz) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March 7, 2005;
(aaaa) Professionalism, Forum on Professionalism at the Charleston
School of Law, Charleston, SC 2006;
(bbbb) Oral Arguments, SC Bar Convention, January 28, 2006;
(cccc) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC March        6,
2006;
(dddd) Expediting Appeals in Dependency Cases, SC, Family Court
Summit, Columbia, SC July 2006;
(eeee) Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting
Adjunct Professor Fall 2006 semester;
(ffff) Order Writing, 14th Annual Probate Bench/Bar, Columbia, SC
   Sept. 15, 2006;
(gggg) Keeping Your Verdicts Without Compromising Your Ethics,
Auto Torts Atlanta, GA December 2, 2006;
(hhhh) Oral Argument, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, SC
   December 7, 2006;
(iiii) Appellate Issues: Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC March        12,
2007;
(jjjj) Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting
Adjunct Professor Fall 2007 semester;
(kkkk) Ethics, Summary Court Judges’ Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC
   September 7, 2007;

  [HJ]                          12
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(llll) Panel on the Constitution, Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC
   September 26, 2007;
(mmmm) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC March 10,
2008;
(nnnn) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC May         12,
2008;
(oooo) New Appellate Rules in Workers’ Compensation Cases,
Clarion Townhouse Columbia, SC          May 2008;
(pppp) Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting
Adjunct Professor Fall 2008 semester;
(qqqq) Family Court Bench Bar, Columbia, SC December 5, 2008;
(rrrr) Appellate Issues: Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC March        9,
2010;
(ssss) Professionalism Series, Lecturer, Thirty-five Years of
Professionalism, Charleston School of Law, Charleston, SC March 18,
2010;
(tttt) The Art of Appellate Advocacy, Lecturer How to Talk to and
Write for Judges Charleston, SC April 30, 2010;
(uuuu) Appellate Issues: Bridge the Gap Columbia, SC August 2,
2010;
(vvvv) SC Legal Services Statewide Meeting View from the Bench:
Judges’ Panel November 19, 2010;
(wwww) Appellate Responsibilities of GAL In the Interest of the
Child, Columbia, SC January 28, 2011;
(xxxx) Women's Leadership Conference – Women in the Judiciary,
   Conway, SC       March 25, 2011;
(yyyy) League of Women Voters Forum on the Judiciary, Lecturer,
   Myrtle Beach, SC May 16, 2011.
   Justice Hearn reported that she has published the following:
   (a) SC Appellate Practice Handbook (SC Bar CLE 1985),
Contributing Author.
   (b) Marital Litigation in S.C., Roy T. Stuckey and F. Glenn Smith
(SC Bar CLE 1997), Editorial Board.
   (c) SC Damages, Terry E. Richardson, Jr., and Daniel S.
Haltiwanger (SC Bar CLE 2004), authored chapter titled, “SC
Modified Comparative Negligence.”
   (d) The Appellate Prosecutor: A Practical and Inspirational Guide
to Appellate Advocacy, Ronald H. Clark (SC Bar CLE 2005),
authored chapter on oral argument.
(4) Character:


  [HJ]                         13
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   The Commission’s investigation of Justice Hearn did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against her. The Commission’s investigation of Justice Hearn did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Justice Hearn has
handled her financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Justice Hearn was punctual and
attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Justice Hearn reported that her last available rating by a legal rating
organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was BV.
(6) Physical Health:
   Justice Hearn appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Justice Hearn appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Justice Hearn was admitted to the SC Bar in 1977.
   Justice Hearn gave the following account of her legal experience
since graduation from law school:
   (a) 1977-79: Law clerk to the Honorable Julius B. Ness, Associate
Justice of the SC Supreme Court;
   (b) 1979-86: Associate and partner in firm which eventually
became Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn; Loris and Myrtle
Beach, SC;
   (c) 1986-95: Family Court Judge for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
(Chief Administrative Judge from 1987-95);
   (d) 1995-99: Judge, SC Court of Appeals;
   (e) 1999-2009: Chief Judge, SC Court of Appeals;
   (f) 2010-present: Justice, SC Supreme Court.
   Justice Hearn reported that she has held the following judicial
offices:
      “I was elected Family Court Judge in 1986 and served until 1995.
The family court has jurisdiction over matters involving domestic
relationships, such as divorce, division of marital property, custody,
visitation rights, adoptions, termination of parental rights, and juvenile
criminal matters.”
      “In 1995, I was elected to serve as a judge on the SC Court of
Appeals, and in 1999, I was elected Chief Judge of the Court of

  [HJ]                            14
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Appeals. The court of appeals has jurisdiction over all appeals, with
the following seven exceptions (see § 14-8-200 of the SC Code):
   (a) death penalty cases;
   (b) final decisions of the Public Service Commission setting public
utility rates;
   (c) challenges to the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance
(unless the Supreme Court deems the constitutional question raised
insignificant);
   (d) final judgments from the circuit court involving the
authorization, issuance, or proposed issuance of general obligation
debt, revenue, institutional, industrial, or hospital bonds of the State,
its agencies, political subdivisions, public service districts, counties,
and municipalities, or any other indebtedness authorized by Article X
of the Constitution of this State;
   (e) judgments dealing with elections or election procedures;
   (f) orders limiting the investigation of the state grand jury; and
   (g) orders dealing with an abortion by a minor.”
      “In 2009, I was elected to the Supreme Court. I began to serve the
remainder of Justice John Waller's un-expired term in January 2010.”
   Justice Hearn provided the following list of her most significant
orders or opinions:
   “(a) Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Life Ins. Co., 322 S.C. 139, 470 S.E.2d
382 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1167 (1987) (holding that
an employee seeking to recover benefits under ERISA was entitled to
a jury trial);
   (b) In re Expediting Appeals from Termination of Parental Rights
Proceedings, 366 S.C. 670, 623 S.E.2d 661 (Ct. App. 2005)
(recognizing the need for stability in children’s lives               and
implementing an expedited procedure for handling appeals from
termination of parental rights proceedings, adoption proceedings,
and/or DSS actions involving the custody of a minor child);
   (c) State v. Picklesimer, 388 S.C. 264, 695 S.E.2d 845 (2010)
(holding a circuit court may sentence a defendant who violates
probation for a term up to the end of his original           unsuspended
sentence);
   (d) Travelscape, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Revenue,
391 S.C. 89, 705 S.E.2d 28 (2011) (finding sales tax constitutionally
and statutorily applied to the service and facilitation fees retained by
an out-of-state internet travel company.
   (e) Oblachinski v. Reynolds, 391 S.C. 557, 706 S.E.2d 844 (2011)
(declining to recognize a cause of action for negligent diagnosis of

  [HJ]                            15
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

sexual abuse brought by alleged perpetrator of abuse against the
doctor).”
   Justice Hearn reported the following regarding her employment
while serving as a judge:
   “Adjunct Professor at the Charleston School of Law in appellate
advocacy during the 2006, 2007, and 2008 fall semesters.”
   Justice Hearn further reported the following regarding unsuccessful
candidacies:
   “In May of 2007, I unsuccessfully ran for Seat 5 on the SC Supreme
Court. The Judicial Merit Selection Committee nominated Donald
Beatty, H. Bruce Williams, and me for the seat. The Honorable Donald
W. Beatty won the election. In February of 2008, I ran for Seat 3 on
the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Judicial Merit Selection
Committee nominated John Kittredge, John Few, and me for the seat.
The Honorable John Kittredge won the election.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Justice Hearn’s temperament has been
and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Justice Hearn “Qualified” in
the areas of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental
stability. The Committee found Justice Hearn “Well qualified” in the
areas of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character,
reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. They stated in
summary, “Justice Hearn has an impressive legal background and is
well-qualified to serve as a justice on the SC Supreme Court.”
   Justice Hearn is married to George M. Hearn, Jr. She has one child.
   Justice Hearn reported that she was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
   (a) SC Bar Association;
   (b) Council of Chief Judges
      Immediate Past President, 2006-07;
      President, 2005-06;
      Chair, Education Committee, 2003;
      Member, Executive Board, 2001-Present;
      Member, Education Committee, 2000-02.
   (c) Conference of Family Court Judges
      Treasurer, 1990;
      Secretary, 1991;
      President, 1992.


  [HJ]                           16
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Justice Hearn further reported, “In 2004, I was the portrait honoree
for the South Carolina Trial Lawyers’ Association. In 2010, I received
the Jean Galloway Bissell Award from the S.C. Women Lawyer's
Association. In May, 2010, I received an Honorary Doctorate of Laws
from the Charleston School of Law; and in May, 2011, I received an
Honorary Doctorate of Humanities from Francis Marion University.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented that Justice Hearn has an outstanding
reputation and strong work ethic as a jurist that serve her well in
performing her responsibilities as a Supreme Court justice.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Justice Hearn qualified and nominated her
for re-election to the Supreme Court.

                     COURT OF APPEALS
                 QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
                  The Honorable Thomas E. Huff
                             Seat 8

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Huff meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the
Court of Appeals.
   Judge Huff was born in 1949. He is 62 years old and a resident of
North Augusta, SC. Judge Huff provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Huff.
   Judge Huff demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial
Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Huff reported that he has not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge Huff testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;


  [HJ]                           17
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Huff testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Huff to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Huff described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Annual Judicial Conference: 8/06; 8/07; 8/08; 8/09; 8/10;
(b) Workers Compensation CLE: 10/10;
(c) SC Association for Justice Annual Convention: 8/09;
(d) NC/SC Appellate Judges Conference: 8/07.
   Judge Huff reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I have lectured at SC Bar CLE Programs covering the topics of
appellate practice in criminal and civil appeals and matters concerning
appeals from summary courts.
(b) I participated as a faculty member for a week long program of
training for U.S. Attorneys at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia.
The course was entitled Appellate Advocacy, course number 01-01AA1.
   Judge Huff reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Huff did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Huff did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Huff has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Huff was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Huff reported that his rating by a legal rating organization,
Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
   Judge Huff reported that he held the following public office:
      “I was elected to the SC House of Representatives in 1978. I served
from 1978 to 1996. I timely filed all required reports and disclosures.”

  [HJ]                            18
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Huff appears to be physically capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Huff appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Huff was admitted to the SC Bar in 1976.
   Judge Huff gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
     “1976-96: I started a solo law practice with an emphasis in domestic
law, workers compensation, and civil/tort/personal injury matters. In 1990
I was selected by Aiken Electric Cooperative to serve as their corporate
counsel. I represented them in the Circuit Court and Supreme Court until I
was elected to the Court of Appeals.”
   Judge Huff reported that he has held the following judicial office:
     “SC Court of Appeals, elected February 1996. This court has
statewide jurisdiction over all courts, agencies, commissions and
administrative law courts. It is an error correction court. We hear all
matters other than those exclusively reserved to the Supreme Court.”
   The following is Judge Huff’s account of his five most significant
orders or opinions:
(a) State v. Brayboy, 387 S.C. 174, 691 S.E.2d 482 (Ct. App. 2010);
(b) State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 692 S.E.2d 554 (Ct. App. 2010);
(c) State v. Hill, Op. No. 4856 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed July 27, 2011)
(Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 25 at 61); 2011 WL 3273544;
(d) Mozingo & Wallace Architects, LLP v. Patricia Grand, 379 S.C.
478, 666 S.E. 2d 267 (Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied (June 6, 2009);
(e) State v. Bryant, 390 S.C. 638, 740 S.E.2d 344 (Ct. App. 2011).
   Judge Huff further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful
candidacy:
     “I ran for the Court of Appeals in 1993 but lost to Judge Carol
Conner by seven votes.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Huff’s temperament has been
and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Huff “Well qualified”
for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications,
ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation,
physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.

  [HJ]                            19
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

The Committee stated in summary, “Judge Huff is truly an asset to our
state and our judiciary. The Committee has the utmost appreciation for
his honorable service on the Court of Appeals and in the community.
We believe he is most eminently qualified to continue his service on
the Court of Appeals and we are confident he would continue to serve
in an outstanding manner.”
   Judge Huff is married to Patricia Dale Tucker. He has one child.
   Judge Huff reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar;
(b) Aiken County Bar.
   Judge Huff provided that he was not a member of any civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
   Judge Huff further reported:
      “For the past 6+ years I have served as a Sunday school teacher in
my church. It has been an experience that has constantly refreshed me and
given me immeasurable perspective to deal with the stresses of life and
my service on the court.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments
   The Commission commented that Judge Huff is a well-respected and
fair judge on the Court of Appeals where he has ably served for over
fifteen years.
(12) Conclusion
   The Commission found Judge Huff qualified and nominated him for
re-election to the Court of Appeals.

                      CIRCUIT COURT
                 QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

                The Honorable George C. James, Jr.
                   Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
  Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge James meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
  Judge James was born in 1960. He is 51 years old and a resident of
Sumter, SC. Judge James provided in his application that he has been a


  [HJ]                            20
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a
licensed attorney in SC since 1985.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge James.
   Judge James demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge James reported that he not made any campaign expenditures.
   Judge James testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge James testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
   Dr. Marie-Therese H. Assa’ad-Faltas filed a complaint against Judge
James’ candidacy for this judicial position, although she specifically
stated that she did not wish to have Judge James disqualified, but
wished that he “answer before this JMSC . . . why he failed to do
anything when [she] presented him with irrefutable objective evidence
that a ruling of his was procured by fraud upon the court”. At the
public hearing, Dr. Faltas testified that Judge James failed to review
evidence that Dr. Faltas claimed as proof that the Fifth Circuit
Solicitor’s Office misled the circuit court in two bond hearings
involving her. According to Judge James’ testimony, he agreed that it
would be improper for him to knowingly rely upon false
representations in making a decision, but testified that that did not
occur in either of the two bond hearings as to Dr. Faltas’ bond. Judge
James further testified that he made his rulings based on the
information provided at the bond hearings and that he believed that his
decisions were factually and legally sound. After hearing and
reviewing testimony provided by Dr. Faltas and Judge James, the
Commission found that Dr. Faltas’ complaint was not credible and was
without merit.




  [HJ]                           21
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge James to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge James described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Orientation for New Circuit Judges        7/9-7/10/06;
(b) ’06 Annual Judicial Conf. 8/23/06;
(c) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update           1/26/07;
(d) 5th Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/07;
(e) ’07 Annual Judicial Conf. 8/22/07;
(f) National Judicial College 10/14-10/25/07;
(g) 23rd Annual Crim Law Update 1/25/08;
(h) 6th Annual Civil Law Update 1/25/08;
(i) ’08 Circuit Judges’ Conf.       5/16-5/18/08;
(j) ’08 Annual Judicial Conf. 8/20/08;
(k) 24th Annual Crim Law Update 1/23/09;
(l) 7th Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/09;
(m) ’09 Circuit Judges’ Conf.       5/6-5/8/09;
(n) ’09 Annual Judicial Conf. 8/19/09;
(o) 25th Annual Crim Law Update 1/22/10;
(p) 8th Annual Civil Law Update 1/22/10;
(q) ’10 Circuit Judges’ Conf.       5/5-5/7/10;
(r) ’10 Annual Judicial Conf. 8/18/10;
(s) 26th Annual Crim Law Update 1/21/11;
(t) 9th Annual Civil Law Update 1/21/11;
(u) “11 Circuit Judges” Conf. 5/4-5/6/11.
   Judge James reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I have spoken to the 3rd Circuit solicitors and public defenders on
evidence topics.
(b) I have taught selected topics on evidence in the Advanced
Evidence course at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.
(c) I have spoken to attorneys on the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.
(d) I spoke to young prosecutors on recent case law at an annual
Solicitors Conf.
   Judge James reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge James did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge James did not

  [HJ]                           22
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge James has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge James was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge James reported that his last available rating by a legal rating
organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV.
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge James appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge James appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge James was admitted to the SC Bar in 1985.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
     “After graduating from law school in 1985, I entered private
practice with Richardson, James and Player in Sumter as an associate.
I eventually became a partner. In 2000, the firm was known as
Richardson and James, and that firm merged with another Sumter firm,
Lee, Erter, Wilson, Holler and Smith, to become Lee, Wilson, Erter,
James, Holler and Smith, LLC. I was a member of that firm until my
election to the bench in 2006. During my years in private practice, I
handled mostly civil cases in state and federal court, primarily state
court. My practice was centered mostly upon representing defendants
in civil litigation, and I handled a fair amount of insurance fraud cases
for carriers.      I also defended governmental entities and law
enforcement officers in tort and civil rights cases. I also represented
plaintiffs in personal injury matters. I also advised business entities
and handled business transactions.”
   Judge James reported that he has held the following judicial office:
     “I am currently a circuit judge, having been elected in 2006 by the
General Assembly. This is a court of general jurisdiction.”
   Judge James provided the following list of his most significant
orders or opinions:
(a) Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, 390 S.C. 275,
701 SE 2d 742 (2010). This was a complex legal malpractice action in
Charleston County. I granted summary judgment to the defendants on

  [HJ]                            23
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

the issue of proximate cause, and further ruled that the plaintiff’s
summary judgment expert witness affidavits were insufficient, and
further ruled the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants’
conduct was unreasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed.
(b) Rutland v. SCDOT, 390 S.C. 78, 700 SE2d 241(Ct. App. 2010).
In this case, an Orangeburg County jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff in a wrongful death action against SCDOT. I granted
SCDOT’s post-trial motion to re-allocate the division of a wrongful
death and survival settlement the plaintiff had reached with a former
defendant, the effect of which was to render the verdict completely set
off by the prior settlement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding
that I had properly re-allocated the prior settlement.
(c) State v. James, 386 S.C. 650, 689 SE2d 643 (Ct. App. 2010). In
this Distribution of Crack Cocaine case, the Court of Appeals affirmed
my decision not to give the jury a mere presence charge. The Court
reviewed the situations in which a mere presence charge would be
warranted.
(d) Pringle v. SLR, Inc. of Summerton, 382 S.C. 397, 675 SE2d 783
(Ct. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed my grant of summary
judgment to a restaurant owner, finding that the owner was not
negligent in placing residential grade chairs in a commercial
establishment, and finding that the doctrine of spoliation of evidence
did not preclude the grant of summary judgment, as any inference a
jury could derive from the fact that the subject chair was lost or
destroyed was that the chair was not defective.
(e) Workman v. Krishna, LLC and America’s Best Value Inns,
Sumter County Court of Common Pleas, 2008-CP-43-1138. The
plaintiff’s decedent was shot to death in a room in a motel in Sumter.
The plaintiff advanced theories centered upon the defendants’ failure to
maintain adequate security for its patrons. I granted summary
judgment for the defendants on the ground that there was not a scintilla
of evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. I do not know
if the order was appealed.
   Judge James further reported the following regarding unsuccessful
candidacy:
      “In 1999, I ran for the circuit bench. I was not one of the three to
make it out of screening.”




  [HJ]                            24
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge James’s temperament has been
and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Judge James “Qualified”
with respect to the following evaluative criteria: constitutional
qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Citizens
Committee found Judge James “Well qualified” with respect to the
following evaluative criteria: ethical fitness, professional and academic
ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament.
The Committee stated in summary, “Judge James is known to come
into the courtroom well prepared for the cases he is to hear and he
expects the attorney on those cases to be prepared as well. We believe
this to be a fine quality in a judge.”
   Judge James is married to Dena Owen James. He has two children.
   Judge James reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar Association, 1985-present;
(b) Sumter County Bar Association, 1985-present. I can’t remember
exactly when, but I was secretary-treasurer in the early to mid-1990s;
(c) SC Circuit Judges’ Association, 2006-present;
(d) American Bar Association, Judicial Division, 2010-present.
   Judge James provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Cotillion Club (Social Club);
(b) Sumter Assembly (Social Club);
(c) Les Trente (Social Club);
(d) J. Matthew Perry Civility Award- presented to me by the Richland
County Bar Association in 2009.
   Judge James further reported:
      “I was fortunate to grow up with parents who provided me with an
enormous amount of love and direction. My late father was a
consummate gentleman and was also my law partner when he died in
1999. I learned a great deal from him as a man and a lawyer. I have
always tried to conduct myself in a way that would make him proud. I
haven’t always measured up, but even on the bench, I frequently
consider how I think he would handle difficult situations. Many might
think that judges who weren’t exposed to financially and socially
disadvantaged formative years could not possibly identify with or
empathize with litigants who are in that category. However, I was
taught to be gracious and courteous to everyone, and I have tried

  [HJ]                            25
                    THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

mightily as a judge to treat everyone accordingly. Also, when I was in
private practice, I had an extremely busy practice. I still have not
forgotten that attorneys in this day and age are under-appreciated and
overworked. I remind myself that the lawyers who appear in front of
me are likely burning the candle at both ends and are trying very hard
to represent their clients to the best of their ability and that on occasion,
they need some slack.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented on Judge James’ outstanding
reputation and intellect on the Circuit Court bench, as well as his score
on the Commission’s Practice and Procedures test, which was the
highest among all the Circuit Court candidates.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Judge James qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

                 The Honorable John Michael Baxley
                   Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Baxley meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
Judge Baxley was born in 1956. He is 55 years old and a resident of
Hartsville, SC. Judge Baxley provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1982.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Baxley.
Judge Baxley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial
Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Baxley reported that he has made $25.00 in campaign
expenditures for clerical assistance and the costs of mailing his
application to the Commission, estimated at less than $3.00.
   Judge Baxley testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

  [HJ]                             26
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Baxley testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Baxley to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Baxley described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) All Annual Civil and Criminal Law Updates;
   SC Bar Convention (2006-2011);
(b) All Annual Circuit Judges’ Conference Programs—
   Various subjects (2006-2011);
(c) All Annual Judiciary Conference Programs—
   Various subjects (2006-2011);
(d) Instructor, S. C. New Circuit Judges School (2006 -2011);
(e) National Judicial College --
   “Mental Health & Substance Abuse Disorders (2007);
(f) National Access to Justice Commission Conference
(g) National Judicial College Course -- “When Justice Fails” (2011).
   Judge Baxley reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
   “Since being elected to the bench, I have conducted seminars on
mental health issues at the Solicitors’ and Public Defenders’ annual
conventions; have spoken to the circuit judges on mental health issues
at our annual conferences; lectured on ethics and the case of In Re:
Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar at the annual
convention of the South Carolina Association for Justice; presented on
the operations of the multi-week trial civil docket to the South Carolina
Association of Defense Trial Attorneys; administered the new
attorney’s oath and discussed ethics and professionalism at Bar
meetings and/or group conferences; participated as a discussion panel
member before several legal groups on various issues; and, as of this
writing, am preparing a distance learning presentation for the South
Carolina Bar CLE division on the topic of “When Justice Fails,” a
study of the German justice system before and during World War II.”
   Judge Baxley reported that he has not published any books or
articles.

  [HJ]                            27
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Baxley did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Baxley did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Baxley has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Baxley was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Baxley did not report a rating by any legal rating organization.
   Judge Baxley reported that he has held the following public office:
   “It was my privilege to serve as a member of the SC House of
Representatives, elected from District 65 (portions of Chesterfield,
Darlington, Kershaw, Lee, and Sumter counties) from 1986-98. I did
not seek re-election in 1998.”
   (6) Physical Health:
   Judge Baxley appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Baxley appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Baxley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
   “I was employed with only one firm during my career as a practicing
lawyer, Driggers, Baxley & Moyd of Hartsville, SC. This partnership
was a small town, general practice firm. For the first four years (1982-
1986), my practice involved numerous areas of law including real
estate, probate, workers compensation, domestic, criminal, corporate
and business, and civil claims. During this time, I participated as a
referral attorney for the local legal services office, for two years I
served as chairman of the Darlington County Public Defender
Corporation, and for three years served as prosecutor for the city of
McBee, SC municipal court.
   It was my privilege to be elected to the SC House of Representatives
in 1986, which significantly changed my practice. Time constraints
required that I withdraw from the Family and General Sessions Courts,
and all other practice areas were curtailed in favor of a civil practice.

  [HJ]                            28
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

The nature of my civil practice also changed, switching from general
administration of tort claims to handling matters in litigation. This
further developed into litigation referrals from other attorneys of cases
that involved claims against governmental entities, unusual liability
theories, and/or atypical damages issues.
   Since July 1, 2000, I have served continuously as a state circuit
judge.”
   Judge Baxley reported that he has held the following judicial office:
   “I have served as a Circuit Court judge continuously since June 25,
2000, having been elected by the General Assembly to the Fourth Judicial
Circuit Residential Seat 2 position on February 8, 2000, and again on
February 9, 2006. This is our state’s trial court of general jurisdiction.”
   The following is Judge Baxley’s account of his five most significant
orders or opinions:
(a) South Carolina Department of Mental Health Forensic Evaluation
Cases
   Statewide Jurisdiction commencing September 1, 2003
   By Order of the Chief Justice, I was given oversight authority for
operation of the forensic evaluation services of the Department of
Mental Health with instructions to reduce and eliminate significant
backlogs for criminal defendants awaiting mental evaluation for
competency and criminal responsibility. S. C. Code Ann. § 44-23-410
allows thirty (30) days for a competency examination to be conducted
and an additional five (5) days for a written report to be returned to the
Court. At the commencement of the oversight period, some defendants
were waiting in local jails over six months for evaluation. That period
is now down to an average of less than thirty (30) days, and the
Department is in statutory compliance. In the process of reducing the
backlogs, new and more detailed evaluation commitment orders have
been developed, new procedures for evaluation scheduling have been
employed, and safeguards put in place to eliminate non-meritorious
requests for evaluation that may be attempted for delay, strategy, or
some other tactic. The faster evaluation process has resulted in
significant savings to county detention centers statewide and a timelier
disposition of cases where the mental status of the defendant is at issue.
   In May of 2011, the Chief Justice requested that this oversight
process be expanded to develop a statewide uniform procedure for all
circuit solicitors, the Department of Mental Health, and the Department
of Disabilities and Special Needs to employ with regard to the
monitoring and follow up for individuals who are found to be


  [HJ]                             29
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

permanently not competent to stand trial or adjudged not guilty by
reason of insanity. This process is currently ongoing.
(b) Waldrop vs. City of Greenville and Commissioners of Public
Works
   (Greenville, 02-CP-23-8070)
   Trial date October 10, 2003. This civil claim involved the right of
public access to lands owned by public entities. The defendants are
owners of a large tract of pristine property that surrounds a watershed
that provides drinking water for most of Greenville County. Previously
no public access was allowed to the tract. The Defendants then entered
into a use easement that allows hiker access to the mountainous
property, connecting the Palmetto and Appalachian Trails. Plaintiffs
were neighboring landowners who sought to use a previous
conservation easement granted by Defendants to the Nature
Conservancy to prevent public access to Defendants’ property.
Judgment was granted for the Defendants on the basis that the
Plaintiffs had no standing to assert the Nature Conservancy easement
as a bar to prevent public access; further, reasonable use by the public
of this beautiful and publicly held property is appropriate. The
decision was not appealed.
(c) State of South Carolina vs. David and Darry Hanna
   (Florence, 04-GS-21-1078) Murder
   Trial date August 8, 2005. Two brothers were charged and tried
jointly for the murder of David Hanna’s wife, the town administrator
for the city of Johnsonville, SC. The case was entirely circumstantial,
and presentation of the state’s case took nine (9) days. The state’s
theory of prosecution was that Defendant Darry Hanna shot David
Hanna’s wife at the direction and request of David Hanna. Because it
involved the murder of a public official, allegedly killed by family
members, the case was significantly reported in the press. The trial
was hotly contested and involved multiple issues including evidence
admissible against one defendant but not the other, third party guilt,
exclusion/inclusion of inconclusive forensic evidence, proof thresholds
in purely circumstantial cases, discovery disputes and allegations of
failure to disclose witnesses, and many others. At the close of the
state’s case, I dismissed all charges in favor of the Defendants because
of a total failure of proof against Defendant Darry Hanna, and all other
indicted charges were founded upon Darry Hanna being convicted of
murder (conspiracy to commit murder, accessory before and after the
fact of murder). Great controversy erupted over the dismissal of the
charges; however, the law is clear—evidence that casts a mere

  [HJ]                           30
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

suspicion and does not go to actual proof of murder is not sufficient to
support a conviction, and if there is nothing more than suspicion at the
conclusion of the state’s case, the Court has a responsibility to dismiss
the charges. See State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 450
(1984). The decision was not appealable.
(d) T.R., K.R., P.W., A.M., and the SC Protection and Advocacy for
People with Disabilities vs. The State of SC and SC Department of
Corrections
   (Richland, 05-CP-40-2925) Class Action Inmate Litigation
   Currently scheduled for a 4-week non-jury trial in February, 2012.
This case is brought on behalf of all current SCDC inmates who suffer
from serious mental illness, approximately 2,500 individuals. Plaintiffs
allege that the lack of mental health treatment within the Department of
Corrections, the lack of crisis stabilization procedures, the use of
excessive force, and the insufficient number of mental health
professionals results in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,
§15 (cruel and unusual punishment) and Article XII, §2 (providing for
health and rehabilitation of inmates) of the SC Constitution. The State
vigorously denies these claims. Plaintiffs are represented pro bono by
the Nelson Mullins Law Firm, and the state is represented by in house
counsel from SCDC, the office of the Attorney General, and the firm of
Davidson & Lindemann of Columbia.
(e) Estate of McBryde, et. al. vs William Frank Davidson and
Lancaster Recovery Center, et. al.
   (Marlboro, 09-CP-34-72, 73, 74, and 113) Multiple Wrongful Death.
   Trial Date December 10, 2009. This case arose from an automobile
accident near Bennettsville, SC, in which three children were killed and
a fourth permanently brain-injured. The wreck resulted when
Defendant Davidson’s vehicle crossed the center line on a rural road
and struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle head-on. The collision occurred on a
Sunday evening, and Defendant Davidson had been refused entry to a
Lancaster substance abuse treatment center earlier that day, although he
had been a patient as recently as two days before, and although he
allegedly informed the staff he was actively using crack cocaine in the
facility parking lot. This case involved substantial and unusual
questions of superseding and intervening negligence, professional
negligence, proximate causation, spoliation of evidence in the
destruction of Defendant Lancaster’s treatment files, and the
disappearance of evidence during trial. Verdict for Plaintiffs in the


  [HJ]                            31
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

amount of $10.5 million actual and punitive damages against all
Defendants, case settled post-trial.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Baxley’s temperament has been
and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Judge Baxley “Qualified” in
the evaluative criteria areas of constitutional qualifications, physical
health and mental stability. The Committee found Judge Baxley “Well
qualified” in the areas of ethical fitness, professional and academic
ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament.
   The Committee stated in summary, “Judge Baxley is an extremely
conscientious judge who understands the law well and is willing to
apply it fairly to all litigants appearing before him.”
   Judge Baxley reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) Darlington County Bar Association;
(b) SC Bar Association;
(c) American Bar Association.
   Judge Baxley provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) YMCA;
(b) Butler Heritage Foundation—former member, Board of Directors;
(c) Renofest sponsor (local bluegrass annual festival);
(d) Hartsville Community Players sponsor;
(e) Hartsville Civic Chorale sponsor;
(f) Hartsville Museum sponsor;
(g) Hartsville Community Concerts sponsor;
(h) Brookgreen Gardens—member, President’s Council.
   Judge Baxley further reported:
      “Thank you for the opportunity to seek re-election to the South
Carolina judiciary. I am humbled by the confidence shown by the
Judicial Merit Selection Commission and the SC General Assembly in
allowing me to serve two previous terms in this position.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented on Judge Baxley’s outstanding service
on the Circuit Court bench, noting that he is well respected and exhibits
fine judicial temperament.




  [HJ]                            32
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(12) Conclusion:
  The Commission found Judge Baxley qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

                The Honorable Lee Casey Manning
                   Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Manning meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Manning was born in 1950. He is 61 years old and a resident
of Columbia, SC. Judge Manning provided in his application that he
has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and
has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1977.
 (2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Manning.
   Judge Manning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Manning reported that he has not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge Manning testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Manning testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Manning to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Manning described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:

  [HJ]                           33
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(a) Annual Judicial Conference      08/23/06;
(b) Annual Criminal Law Update        01-26-07;
(c) Annual Civil Law Update 01-26-07;
(d) Insurance Coverage Seminar 06-19-07;
(e) Annual Judicial Conference      08-22-07;
(f) Annual Civil Law Update 01-25-08;
(g) Annual Judicial Conference      08-20-08;
(h) Commission on Judicial Conduct 10-21-08;
(i) Annual Criminal Law Update        01-23-09;
(j) Annual Civil Law Update 01-23-09;
(k) Circuit Court Judges Assn. 05-06-09;
(l) New Judges’ Orientation School      07-08-09;
(m) Conference on Lawyers & Judicial Discipline 10-22-09;
(n) Circuit Judges Association 05-05-10;
(o) SCAJ Annual Convention 08-05-10;
(p) Conference on Lawyers & Judicial Discipline 10-26-10;
(q) Annual Criminal Law Update 01-21-11;
(r) Trial & Appellate Advocacy Section 01-21-11;
(s) Annual Judicial Conference      05-05-11.
   Judge Manning reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I have lectured at Joint SC Correction Assn. & Parole Agents’
Conf.;
(b) I have spoken at the National Youth Violence Prevention Seminar;
(c) I have lectured at the SC Reserve Fund Seminar;
(d) I have spoken at Magistrates Conferences;
(e) I have spoken at the SC Bar Young Lawyers Division;
(f) I have lectured at the Presbyterian Student Peace and Justice
Institute;
(g) I have spoken at the WLTX Player of the Year Banquet.

   Judge Manning reported that he not has published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Manning did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Manning did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Manning
has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Manning was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s

  [HJ]                           34
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Manning reported that his rating by a legal organization,
Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
   Judge Manning reported that he held the following public offices:
   (a) SC Assistant Attorney General – Appointed 1983-89;
   (b)     Bar Examiner – 1992.
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Manning appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Manning appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Manning was admitted to the SC Bar in 1977.
   Judge Manning gave the following account of his legal experience
since graduation from law school:
(a) 1979-83: Attorney and Counselor at Law, Dillon County, private
practice;
(b) 1980: Part-time instructor, Florence-Darlington Technical College;
(c) 1983-89: South Carolina Assistant Attorney General;
(d) 1988-89: Chief of Prosecutions;
(e) 1989-94: Partner with Walker, Morgan & Manning, Lexington, SC;
(f) 1994 – Present: Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit.
   Judge Manning reported that he has held the following judicial
office:
   Elected Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, 2-21-94.
   The following is Judge Manning’s account of his five most
significant orders or opinions:
(a) State v. Tamika Grooms, 343 S.C. 248,540 S.E.2d 99. Verbal Order
from the bench regarding the burden of proof by which a defendant must
establish a ‘credible history of criminal domestic violence’ in order to
obtain earlier parole eligibility date provided by §16-25-90 (Supp 1999);
(b) Kathy Gibson v. Spartanburg School District #3. Ct. of Appeals No.
3102;
(c) State v. William Ernest Downs, Jr. (Death Penalty Sentencing
Order);
(d) City of Columbia v. Pic-A-Flic Video, Inc., Supreme Court Opinion
No. 25113;
(e) State v. Cutro. Routine (Bail Order).

  [HJ]                            35
                    THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Manning further reported the following regarding an
unsuccessful candidacy:
   Unsuccessful candidate for Court of Appeals – 2006.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Manning’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Manning “Well
qualified” for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional
qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character,
reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial
temperament. The Committee stated in summary that they were
“honored to interview Judge Manning, and we enjoyed our interview
with him. We believe he is truly an asset to our State and our
Judiciary. We are grateful for his continued service on the Circuit
Court, and we believe he is most eminently qualified to continue his
legacy of outstanding service and leadership on our Circuit Court.”
   Judge Manning is divorced and has three children.
   Judge Manning reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar Association – 1977 to present – Criminal Law Secretary
1987-88;
(b) SC Association for Justice – National Minority Delegate;
(c) Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Sports Committee 1973-
74;
(d) SC Bar Board of Law Examiners 1992;
(e) SC Bar Special Committee on the Judiciary 1991-92;
(f) Hearing Masters, Rules on Judicial Discipline & Standards 1994-98;
(g) SC Commission on Judicial Conduct 1996 to present;
(h) Investigative Panel – 1998 to present;
(i) SC Sentencing Guidelines Commission 1999 to present;
(j) United States Court of Appeals;
(k) United States District Court, District of SC.

   Judge Manning provided that he was a member of the following
civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Recipient of the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Award Aug. 2006;
(b) Recipient of the American Board of Trial Advocates Award Feb.
2011.



  [HJ]                              36
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(11) Commission Member’s Comments
  The Commission commented that Judge Manning has very ably
served on the Circuit Court bench for seventeen years and noted his
continuing service on the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
(12) Conclusion
  The Commission found Judge Manning qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

                         Robert Eldon Hood
                    Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Mr. Hood meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Mr. Hood was born in 1975. He is 36 years old and a resident of
Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Hood provided in his application that
he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past
five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since
2001.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Mr. Hood.
   Mr. Hood demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial
Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Mr. Hood reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
   Mr. Hood testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Mr. Hood testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour rule
regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.




  [HJ]                           37
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Mr. Hood to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Mr. Hood described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) SCAJ – 2011;
(b) Sporting Clays Ethics with the Judges 2011;
(c) Sporting Clays Ethics with the Judges 2010;
(d) SCAJ          2009;
(e) Bridging the Gap – Defending DUI 2009;
(f) SCTLA         2008;
(g) Beginning Westlaw 2008;
(h) Guideline Seminar 2008;
(i) Federal Criminal Practice 2008;
(j) Sporting Clays/Skeet Shoot 2008;
(k) Fighting to Win your DUI 2008;
(l) Skeet Shoot         2007;
(m) Criminal Law Update 2006.
   Mr. Hood reported that he has not taught any law-related courses.
   Mr. Hood reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Hood did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Hood did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hood has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Mr. Hood was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Mr. Hood reported the following rating by a legal rating
organization, “Rated 2.9 out of 5, and I have met the very high criteria
of General Ethical Standing.”
(6) Physical Health:
   Mr. Hood appears to be physically capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Mr. Hood appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of
the office he seeks.

  [HJ]                           38
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(8) Experience:
   Mr. Hood was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 2001.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
“(a) Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Office – Fall of 2001 to 2003
   I handled prosecution cases in General Sessions Court as an
Assistant Solicitor including violent crimes, property crimes, white
collar crimes, drug related crimes and misdemeanors.
(b) South Carolina Attorney General’s Office – 2003 to 2005
   I served as an Assistant Attorney General for the Statewide Grand
Jury. I handled multi-county drug trafficking cases, large scale
securities fraud cases, and white collar/public corruption cases
throughout the state in General Sessions Court.
(c) Strom Law Firm, LLC 2005 – Present
   Our law firm handles criminal and civil complex litigation cases. I
primarily work in the area of criminal defense including all levels of
criminal cases from magistrate’s court to general sessions court to
federal court. I practice extensively in all levels of state and federal
court on almost a daily basis. I also handle all levels of civil litigation
mainly focused on representation of plaintiffs.”
   Mr. Hood further reported:
Experience in Criminal Matters
   “I have extensive experience in handling criminal matters both as a
prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney. I began my practice by
serving as an Assistant Solicitor in Richland County and then moved
on to an Assistant Attorney General in the Statewide Grand Jury
Division. While serving in these positions I have handled jury trials,
bench trials, and hundreds of motions and guilty pleas in Magistrate’s
Court, General Sessions Court, and Federal Court. I have tried Murder
cases both as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney. Further
as an Assistant Solicitor, I helped prepare a capital murder trial. I have
handled violent crimes, property crimes, drug crimes, and
misdemeanors both as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney.
   I practice almost daily in federal, state, magistrate, or local criminal
court. I have represented victims as a prosecutor and as a defense
attorney. I have represented defendants charged with all levels of
crime in South Carolina. I have also practiced extensively in federal
criminal court handling large scale white collar cases and complex drug
trafficking conspiracy cases.



  [HJ]                             39
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

    I have worked on legal issues involving securities law, change of
venue in high profile cases, complex plea negotiations with
corporations, search and seizure, and admissibility of statements.
    While at the Attorney General’s office I successfully tried the largest
securities fraud case in South Carolina history. I also successfully tried
the largest methamphetamine dealer in the state (at that time) whose
case was affirmed on appeal. I have also handled multiple PCR cases
from basic guilty plea PCRs to murder cases that went through a full
trial.”
Experience in Civil Matters
    “All of my dealings in civil matter have been on the plaintiff’s side
of the case. I have drafted and argued motions, taken depositions, and
prepared multiple cases for trial. I have also been involved in
settlement negotiations on multiple cases and have a strong
understanding of the civil system in South Carolina. I have handled
cases from the pleadings and discovery stages to preparation for jury
trial. I continue to research and study civil cases and authoritative
sources concerning procedure and substantive aspects of civil law. I
also have handled cases in federal civil court.”
    Mr. Hood reported the frequency of his court appearances during the
past five years as follows:
(a) federal: weekly to monthly;
(b) state: three to five days a week.
    Mr. Hood reported the percentage of his practice involving civil,
criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil:         20%;
(b) criminal: 80%;
(c) domestic: 0%;
(d) other:         0%.
    Mr. Hood reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during
the past five years as follows:
(a) Jury:          99%;
(b) Non-Jury: 1%.
    Mr. Hood provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
    The following is Mr. Hood’s account of his five most significant
litigated matters:
(a) State v. Larry C. Owen – In this trial in Greenville County General
Sessions Court I was an Assistant Attorney General for the statewide
grand jury. The case was a large scale securities fraud trial. After
week one of a three week trial, Mr. Owen pled guilty to all charges
pending against him. This was the first ever securities fraud criminal

  [HJ]                             40
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

trial in South Carolina and the largest criminal fraud case ever in South
Carolina.
(b) State v. Earle Morris – In this trial in Greenville County General
Sessions Court I was an assistant attorney general for the statewide
grand jury. Mr. Morris maintained his innocence throughout a three
week long trial. During this trial I handled complicated legal issues
that had never before been handled in South Carolina. Mr. Morris was
convicted and his conviction was upheld on appeal.
(c) State v. Denise Hagan – In this trial in Abbeville County General
Sessions Court, I was an assistant attorney general for the statewide
grand jury. Ms. Hagan was the largest methamphetamine dealer in
South Carolina. Hagan was represented by Jack Swerling and the trial
went to jury verdict where Ms. Hagan was convicted. The case had
complicated search issues, admissibility of statements issues, co-
conspirator hearsay issues, and confrontation clause issues. Ms.
Hagan’s conviction was affirmed on appeal.
(d) State v. Eugene King – In this trial in Orangeburg County, I was
appointed by the Court to represent Mr. King in his then pending
Murder case. Mr. Kind had previously been represented by the public
defender’s office when just weeks before trial I was appointed to
represent him. There were complicated legal issues involving
admissibility of statements, mental health issues, and evidence
preservation. Based on legal arguments presented at trial, the Court
decided to give an involuntary manslaughter charge to the jury to
which the state objected. Mr. King was convicted and his conviction
was upheld on appeal and his PCR was denied.
(e) Campbell Soup Company v. Mehder – In this civil case, our firm
was retained by Campbell Soup Company to bring a civil action
against Ms. Mehder for taking in excess of one million dollars from
Campbell’s illegally. I have handled all of the pleadings, motions,
settlement negotiations and hearings in this case. This case is in York
County Common Pleas and is still pending.
   Mr. Hood stated that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
   The following is Mr. Hood’s account of the criminal appeal he has
personally handled:
   United States of America v. Jamar Robinson
   4th Circuit Court of Appeals
   No. 05-5276
   Unpublished
   January 11, 2007.


  [HJ]                            41
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

    Mr. Hood further reported the following regarding unsuccessful
candidacies:
“(a) Candidate for 5th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, Election February 2011;
(b) The Citadel Board of Visitors, Spring 2010.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
    The Commission believes that Mr. Hood’s temperament would be
excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
    The Midlands Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found
Mr. Hood “Well-qualified” for all nine evaluative criteria:
constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic
ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability,
experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in
summary: “The Committee was honored to interview Mr. Hood, and
we enjoyed our time with him. His energy and enthusiasm is
contagious. We feel certain that he has the character, work ethic, and
experience to be an outstanding Circuit Court Judge. We believe he is
eminently qualified to serve on the Circuit Court.”
    Mr. Hood is married to Kristina Kirk Hood. He has two children.
    Mr. Hood reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SCAJ;
(b) Richland County Bar Association;
(c) SCACDL.
    Mr. Hood provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
    The Citadel Alumni Association.
    Mr. Hood further reported:
      “I believe that my unique experiences in handling both criminal
and civil cases throughout my legal career provide me with the skill set
necessary to be a competent, courteous, compassionate, and concerned
judge. This broad and balanced perspective of the legal system gives
me the unique ability to serve humbly and fairly to all lawyers,
litigants, jurors, and court staff.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
    The Commission noted that Mr. Hood possesses an outstanding
reputation as an attorney. They commented that his intellect and
wealth of trial experiences would ably serve him in discharging his
responsibilities as a Circuit Court judge.



  [HJ]                            42
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Mr. Hood qualified and nominated him for
election to the Circuit Court.

                          John P. Meadors
                    Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Mr. Meadors meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Mr. Meadors was born in 1961. He is 50 years old and a resident of
Columbia, SC. Mr. Meadors provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1988.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Mr. Meadors.
   Mr. Meadors demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Mr. Meadors reported that he not made any campaign expenditures.
   Mr. Meadors testified he has not:
   (a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to
screening;
   (b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
   (c) asked third persons to contact members of the General
Assembly prior to screening.
   Mr. Meadors testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
   A complaint was filed by Dr. Marie-Therese H. Assa’ad-Faltas
against Mr. Meadors’ candidacy for this judicial position. In summary,
Dr. Faltas reasserted her claims against Mr. Meadors from a November
11, 2010 public hearing in which she contended that Mr. Meadors
refused to review evidence that Dr. Faltas said was proof that attorneys
in Mr. Meadors’ office had misled the circuit court in a criminal matter
involving Dr. Faltas. After, the Commission heard testimony from and

  [HJ]                           43
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

reviewed documents provided by Dr. Faltas, as well as heard testimony
from Mr. Meadors in response to Dr. Faltas’ allegations at the
November 11, 2010 public hearing, the Commission determined that
her complaint was without merit. The Commission determined not to
rehear Dr. Faltas’ prior allegation at the most recent public hearing.
However, at the November 15, 2011 hearing, the Commission heard
limited testimony related to a new, additional allegation made by Dr.
Faltas, that is, Mr. Meadors was culpable for doing nothing when he
allegedly knew after the November 11, 2010 hearing that perjury had
occurred. The Commission also heard Mr. Meadors’ testimony
regarding this newest allegation and reviewed the transcript from the
November 11, 2010 public hearing. The Commission found Dr. Faltas’
new, additional allegation completely without merit.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Mr. Meadors to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Mr. Meadors described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) 2011 Solicitor’s Conference 9/28/2010;
(b) 2010 Solicitor’s Conference 9/27/2010;
(c) A Civil Trial From Start to Finish 9/21/2010;
(d) A Civil Trial From Start to Finish 9/7/2010;
(e) 2010 Mid-Year Bar Association          1/21/2010;
(f) 2009 SC Solicitors' Conference 9/27/2009;
(g) 2008 SC Solicitors' Conference 9/28/2008;
(h) Capital Litigation Prosecution      9/11/2008;
(I) Prosecution the Impaired Driver        7/17/2008;
(j) 2007 Solicitors' Conference       9/23/2007;
(k) 2006 Solicitors' Conference       9/27/2006;
(l) 21st Annual Criminal Law Update          1/27/2006;
(m) 2005 Solicitors' Conference       9/25/2005.
   Mr. Meadors reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) 20th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina- Speaker- Grab Bag
of Procedure and Process Issues 2/2011.
(b) SC Solicitors' Association 1997 Annual Conference-Taught “Back
to the Basics.”
(b) Boot Camp for New Prosecutors 2/18/2009-Taught and instructed
new attorneys in criminal prosecution.


  [HJ]                          44
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Mr. Meadors reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Meadors did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Meadors did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Meadors has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Mr. Meadors was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Mr. Meadors reported that he is not rated by any legal rating
organization.
(6) Physical Health:
   Mr. Meadors appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Mr. Meadors appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Mr. Meadors was admitted to the SC Bar in 1988.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
      “I started my legal career in the Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's
Office as an assistant solicitor. From 1988-91, I prosecuted everything
from magistrate court offenses to rapes, armed robberies and murders.
      From 1991-95, I worked for the SC Attorney General's Office in
the State Grand Jury Division. Under the supervision of (now) Judge
Cameron Currie, I was part of a team that prosecuted major drug
conspiracies statewide. In addition to presenting evidence to the State
Grand Jury and prosecuting the cases, we also handled the civil
forfeiture aspect of the cases. During this time, I personally prosecuted
numerous cases around the state; including a multi-county drug
conspiracy case involving 8 defendants that culminated in a conviction
after a three week jury trial in Kershaw County. I also was the lead
prosecutor in the second child pornography prosecution and the first
money laundering case for the State Grand Jury. In addition, I was also
appointed a Special Assistant US Attorney and worked with the US
Attorney's Office in the presentation of evidence to the Federal Grand

  [HJ]                            45
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Jury and preparation of a joint federal/state drug conspiracy
prosecution.
     From 1995 to 2003, I was the First Assistant Solicitor in charge of
the Kershaw County Solicitor's office in the Fifth Judicial Circuit. I
was responsible for the prosecution of all General Sessions Court and
Family Court cases in Kershaw County.
     From 2003 to 2011, I was the Deputy Solicitor for the Fifth
Judicial Circuit (Richland and Kershaw). I have been responsible for
the supervision of over 30 attorneys and the prosecution of criminal
cases in the fifth Judicial Circuit. As Deputy Solicitor, I have primarily
tried murder cases.
     Since April of 2011, I have been employed as a part time Assistant
Solicitor for Solicitor Ernest Finney, III, in the 3rd Judicial Circuit. I
have also been employed with the law firm of McWhirter, Bellinger
and Associates. I have been involved in several civil cases at the law
firm, and will continue to work on criminal and civil cases prior to this
position becoming available. This will further prepare me for Common
Pleas Court.”
   Mr. Meadors further reported:
     “I have been involved in the prosecution of hundreds of jury trials
including non-violent and violent felonies. In the past five years, I have
primarily prosecuted murder cases including Homicide by Child Abuse
and Felony DUI Resulting in Death cases.
   Cases I have tried in the past year:
   State v. Charles Gambell: The defendant killed his ex-girlfriend and
two other individuals at the Colony Apartments in Columbia. The
defendant then called a friend who helped him dispose of the bodies in
a nearby drainage ditch. The defendant was also charged with
Burglary 1st and received four consecutive life sentences.
   State v. Maurice Abrams: This was a Sumter County case and was
tried in June 2011. The jury convicted the defendant for murder, armed
robbery, and possession of a fire arm during the commission of a
felony. The case involved co-defendant testimony and the defendant
received a sentence of life plus 35 years.
   State v. Andrea Pearson: The defendant worked as a daycare worker
and was convicted of killing on of the babies in her car (Homicide by
Child Abuse). The victim died in 1998 and two other babies in her
care died in the ten years following. She was tried and convicted for
the first death. In this case I cross-examined an expert in false
confessions who was presented by the defense.


  [HJ]                            46
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   State v. Johnny Gaskins: The defendant shot and killed a bouncer
and customer at a Super Bowl party at Club 360 in Richland County
after being asked to leave the bar. He was also charged with three
counts of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill (ABID) for wounding
three other individuals at the establishment.
   State v. John Portee: The defendant, an employee at Wendy's
restaurant on Two Notch Road in Richland County, killed his
supervisor and another employee after a dispute earlier that week
regarding working at the drive through window.
   State v. Christopher Arant: The defendant slammed his wife's head
into his truck window the morning after her son had beaten him for
previously assaulting the victim ( his mother). The victim died as a
result of her injuries.
   State v. Rafael Goodwin, State v. Timark Hammonds, State v. Isiah
Smith, State v. Terran Clark: This case involved a gang related
retaliation which resulted in homicide. All Defendants pled guilty.
   State v. William Jenkins: The defendant killed three people at
Wellesly Place Condominiums in Richland County.
   I have handled a case in Kershaw County juvenile court where a
child shot and killed his brother.
   Some of the cases I have tried over the past five years:
   State v. Oliver, State v. Gallman, State v. Joy: A triple homicide
case involving three co-defendants and statements which had to be
redacted according to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct.
1620 (1968).
   State v. Whitehead, State v. Robert Cannon, State v. Derreck
McDonald:
   Three co-defendants beat a young man to death in his home in
Kershaw County. This case had numerous legal issues including
redaction of defendants' statements pursuant to Bruton and voice
identification.
   State v. Tobias Lee: A Georgia man killed an elderly victim and
stole his car. The defendant was wanted for several armed robberies in
Columbia and also wanted in Georgia for murder and rape. The
defendant was ultimately captured in Monroe, LA after being featured
on America's Most Wanted.
   State v. Christopher Caldwell: The defendant was a young man who
pled guilty to murder; he decapitated his mother with a medieval ax.
   State v. Jaime Marrero: The defendant killed the clerk at a Kangaroo
convenience store on Garners Ferry Road. This case went unsolved for


  [HJ]                           47
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

years. Co-defendants and the defendant's ex-girlfriend testified at his
trial, which resulted in a murder conviction.
   State v. Christopher Pittman: The defendant, a twelve year old boy,
killed his grandparents in Chester county. His defense counsel
unsuccessfully attempted to blame the killings on the anti-depressant
Zoloft.
   State v. Dwaine Herring: The defendant, a local attorney, killed a
bouncer at a night club in Richland County.                 The defense
unsuccessfully attempted an involuntary intoxication defense.
   State v. Jason Dickey: The defendant was a night watchman at
Cornell Arms Apartments in downtown Columbia who killed an unruly
young man who was visiting a resident. The case involved issues
surrounding the Castle Doctrine and its application. The defendant
shot the victim on the sidewalk in front of Cornell Arms and presented
expert testimony regarding the difference between public and private
property. The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
   State v. Kevin Goodwin: The defendant killed a Forest Acres
physician who came home while the defendant was burglarizing his
house. The defendant was identified through a C.O.D.I.S. Hit by KNA
left on a cigar butt which was discarded at the scene.
   State v. John Moore: This case involved road rage; the defendant
shot and killed a passenger in a vehicle on I-20. This case went
unsolved for years but was resolved by a witness' cooperation and
defendant's statements.
   State v. Timothy Green, State v. Curtis Harris: Two teenagers killed
an elderly store owner in Hopkins. One of the defendants stated he
wanted to rob the store for his birthday.
   State v. Lawrence Crawford: The defendant killed his child by
beating her to death. He would not allow his family to leave their
home without him and initially coerced another child to claim she had
committed the act. He was ultimately convicted of murder for killing
his daughter.
   State v. Vincent Filyaw: The defendant kept a young girl in an
underground bunker for ten days and raped her repeatedly. The young
victim escaped after law enforcement tracked the text messages that
she sent to her mother.           The defendant received 421 years
imprisonment.
   State v. Dennis Kirk: The victim had asked the defendant for
directions to the post office and the defendant offered to ride with him.
The defendant pulled a gun on him, ordered him to drive to a remote
area, shot him in the head, and later burned his truck.

  [HJ]                            48
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   State v. Carmen Rice: A female defendant shot the victim five times
in a remote area of Richland County. The defendant planned on
robbing the victim; the case involved a female accomplice's testimony.
   State v. Sharon Smith: Female defendant stabbed her husband to
death and unsuccessfully argued that she did not intend to kill him.
   State v. June Harris: Three children testified as eyewitnesses against
their mother's ex-boyfriend who shot their mother and killed her new
boyfriend.
   State v. Christopher Commander: The defendant suffocated his wife
and for over a month led her family to believe she was still alive.
Several weeks after he had killed her mother, the defendant sent the
daughter a text message from the victim's phone saying “I'm alive” He
was ultimately captured by the New Orleans Police Department and
was brought back to Richland County for trial, where he was convicted
of murder.
   State v. Keith Sims: Richland county defendant killed a victim and
then dumped the body in Molly's Rock Park in Newberry County and
then disposed of the victim's clothes in Charleston. Defendant
unsuccessfully claimed self-defense.
     I have also prosecuted five Capital Murder cases, two of which
went to trial. In one of these cases, I conducted the first hearing in the
state on the applicability of Capital Punishment to a defendant claiming
mental retardation.
     My significant experience trying cases in General Sessions Court
has provided me a solid foundation to become a circuit court judge. As
a result of my trial experience, I have dealt with all aspects of criminal
law including evidentiary issues such as eyewitness identification,
DNA evidence, competency of defendants, search and seizure, and
other related issues. I have presented and cross-examined experts in
forensic psychiatry, forensic pathology, statistics, bloodhounds,
eyewitness identification, fingerprints, crime scenes, firearms and
ballistics, gun-shot residue and other fields of expertise.
     My experience in civil matter includes assisting in handling asset
forfeitures in drug cases, driving offenses, and judicial commitment
proceedings. Because the rules of evidence are the same in both
criminal and civil trials, my trial experience in General Sessions Court
provides me with a good foundation which I can build upon to become
proficient in Common Pleas Court. Furthermore, I have studied the
rules of civil procedure and have followed the changes in the law by
reading the Advance Sheets.”


  [HJ]                            49
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

    Mr. Meadors reported the frequency of his court appearances during
the past five years as follows:
(a) Federal:       minimal--have appeared in Federal Court to inform
Judge of state defendant's cooperation for downward departure
sentencing;
(b) State:      extensive.
    Mr. Meadors reported the percentage of his practice involving civil,
criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil:         10%;
(b) Criminal: 80%;
(c) Domestic:
(d) Other:         10% Family Court – helped prosecute juveniles in
Kershaw County this past year.
    Mr. Meadors reported the percentage of his practice in trial court
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Jury:          80%;
(b) Non-jury: 20%.
    Mr. Meadors provided that he most often served as lead counsel.
    The following is Mr. Meadors’s account of his five most significant
litigated matters:
(a) State V. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 647 S.E.2d 144 (2007) – This case
drew national attention because the defendant was twelve years old at the
time of the murders and the anti-depressant Zoloft was a potential issue.
The defense had argued that the drug had caused the defendant to lose
control and that he was not responsible for the death of his grandparents.
Legally this case was significant because the opinion held that lay
testimony may be used to rebut the presumption of incapacity regarding
children under fourteen years of age. Court held that the M'Naughten test
is the correct standard for determining criminal responsibility at the time
of the offense. This includes the defense of involuntary intoxication.
(b) State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 291, 692 S.E.2d 490 (2009) – An attorney
shot and killed a bouncer in a local nightclub. Police responded to the
defendant's residence and peeked into his garage where they saw the
defendant's vehicle that was seen earlier on a videotape. The South
Carolina Supreme Court discussed the Fourth Amendment and its
exceptions. Held that the officer's minimal intrusion was objectively
reasonable and did not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. Held it
was objectively reasonable for the officer to take precautions to protect
his own safety, and the safety of the other officers by looking in the
garage to see if suspect was present. After seeing no one in the garage,
police knocked on the front door and waited to get a search warrant.

  [HJ]                            50
                    THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Looking in garage yielded no evidence, in as much as the police already
knew the make and model and license tag of the car, as well as the
address of the suspect.
(c) State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 683 S.E.2d 500 (2009) – The
victim, a retired Forest Acres physician, was shot in the head inside his
home after he surprised the intruder. The defendant was linked to the
crime by a cigar butt he left outside of the window of the residence which
was determined to be the point of entry. This was the first case in this
jurisdiction where a suspect was identified from the SLED DNA
database, C.O.D.I.S. Held that probable cause was established at least for
the burglary from the fact that the defendants DNA was on the cigar butt
outside the point of entry. The court further held that the statement of
defendant was freely and voluntarily given.
(d) State v. Childers, 33 S.C. 367, 645 S.E.2d 244 (2007) – the opinion
discussed the difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter.
The opinion held that an overt act from a third party is not sufficient legal
provocation to entitle a defendant who is charged with murder to a
voluntary manslaughter charge. The provocation must come from some
act of or related to the victim in order to constitute sufficient legal
provocation.
(e) State v Adams, 319 S.C. 509, 462 S.E.2d 308 (1995). Edward Gray,
IV, was arrested and began cooperating with law enforcement in the
investigation of an active cocaine conspiracy. This organization was
bringing drugs from New York, New Jersey and Georgia into South
Carolina for distribution to third parties. The conspiracy continued after
Gray's arrest. Gray made a purchase of drugs from the Atlanta source
while working undercover for the police. Gray and the defendant had
dealt with this source on numerous occasions prior to Gray's arrest. The
Court of Appeals held that even though Gray was working for the police
during the transaction in question, the act of purchasing cocaine from the
source, a co-conspirator, was an act in furtherance of the conspiracy and
admissible to prove the existence of the conspiracy.
   Mr. Meadors reported he has not personally handled any civil or
criminal appeals.
   Mr. Meadors further reported the following regarding unsuccessful
candidacies:
(a) Fifth Circuit Solicitor – 1994;
(b) Circuit Court Judge 2002 – found qualified;
(c) Fifth Circuit Solicitor – 2010 – lost in run-off;
(d) Circuit Court Judge 2011 – found qualified and screened.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

  [HJ]                             51
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   The Commission believes that Mr. Meadors’ temperament would be
excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Midlands Citizens Committee found Mr. Meadors to be “Well
qualified” in each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional
qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability,
character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and
judicial temperament. The Committee further stated in summary, “The
Committee was honored to interview Mr. Meadors again. He is by far
the most experienced and well-rounded candidate we interviewed. We
strongly believe that Mr. Meadors is most eminently qualified to serve
on the Circuit Court. We are most confident he would serve our state
in an outstanding manner.”
   Mr. Meadors is married to Patricia Ann (Rogers) Meadors. He has
four children.
   Mr. Meadors reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) Richland County Bar;
(b) Kershaw County Bar;
(c) SC Bar.
   Mr. Meadors provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Camden Rotary Club:
   Board of Directors, July 1999-2002;
   Chair of the Club Service Committee, July 1999-2002;
   Health and Happiness committee, 2007-present;
   Paul Harris Fellow;
(b) Columbia Classical Ballet Company:
   Board of Directors – January 2009 - present;
(c) Kershaw County Board of Disabilities and Special Needs:
   Prior Board member.
   Mr. Meadors further reported:
      The biggest influence on my life has been my father and mother,
Bishop Jack Meadors and the late Hannah Meadors. My siblings and I
were raised to treat people with fairness and respect. My parents instilled
in all of us the value of service to others. These values have shaped my
personal life and professional career. We were also taught that there are
rules and that there are consequences when the rules are not followed. I
learned early in life that my greatest power was my power to choose.
After 22 years as a prosecutor, dealing with victims, law enforcement,


  [HJ]                             52
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

attorneys and judges, I have the temperament, experience and judgment to
be an effective Circuit Court Judge.
      As an assistant solicitor, I was named “Victim/Witness Assistant of
the Year” in the State of Maryland in 1989. I was nominated by the
parents of a murder victim in a case I prosecuted in Richland County.
The family was from Baltimore and their son was attending Columbia
Bible College.
      I was appointed by the Governor to the State Child Fatality Review
Board – 2007 – present.
      In 2005, I was the recipient of the Ernest F. Hollings Award for
excellence in State Court prosecution. I received this award for my work
on six murder cases in 2005.
      I am a member of Shandon United Methodist Church in Columbia
and periodically teach Sunday School. In addition, I have coached the
girls’ basketball team for over twenty years. I am currently chairperson
of the Staff-Parish Relations committee at my church.
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented that Mr. Meadors has an outstanding
reputation as a prosecutor. They especially noted the Midlands
Citizen’s Committee’s comments that Mr. Meadors was by far the most
experienced and well-rounded candidate they interviewed for this seat
which would assist him in serving on the Circuit Court.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Mr. Meadors qualified and nominated him
for election to the Circuit Court.

                            Clifford Scott
                     Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Mr. Scott meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Mr. Scott was born in 1954. He is 57 years old and a resident of
Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Scott provided in his application that
he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past
five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since
1981. He was also admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1993, though he has
since resigned.

  [HJ]                            53
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Mr. Scott.
   Mr. Scott demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial
Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Mr. Scott reported that he has made $262.85 in campaign
expenditures for mailing services, copies, and postage to send an
introductory letter and a resume to members of the General Assembly.
   Mr. Scott testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Mr. Scott testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour rule
regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Mr. Scott to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Mr. Scott described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Public Defender Conference 09/26/2005;
(b) SC Black Lawyers Assn Retreat           09/28/2006;
(c) Lawyers Computers and Cable News             11/03/2006;
(d) Show me the Money: Military Family Support 01/10/2007;
(e) Law Office Technology 01/24/2008;
(f) Civil Law Update 01/25/2008;
(g) Day in Discovery 01/25/2008 & 01/26/2008;
(h) Breakfast Ethics Seminar        01/27/2008;
(i) Select Issues in SC Procurement         06/04/2008;
(j) SC Black Lawyers Annual Summit & Retreat 10/30/2008;
(k) Ethics Judicial Family Seminar 12/05/2008;
(l) Non-citizens in the Family Court Proceedings 02/28/2009;
(m) Veterans Disability Benefits 03/24/2009;
(n) SC Black Lawyers Annual Retreat            10/01/2009;
(o) SC Black Lawyers Retreat 10/01/2010;
(p) Staying Out Of Trouble 02/26/2011;
(q) Intellectual Property and the General Practitioner       02/27/2011;

  [HJ]                           54
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(r) Digital Law Office 02/27/2011;
(s) The Virtual Office 02/27/2011;
(t) SC Association of Justice Convention        08/04-06/2011.
   Mr. Scott reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
   “I taught a graduate school level course titled the Legal Aspects of
Higher Education, in the USC College of Education, during the fall of
1993, and the spring of 1994.”
   Mr. Scott reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Scott did not reveal evidence
of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him.
   The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Scott indicated some
concerns regarding his finances.
   The Commission also noted that Mr. Scott was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Mr. Scott reported that he is not rated by any legal rating
organization.
   Mr. Scott reported the following military service:
(a) 19 September 1973 -- 2 February 1974; US Air Force; E-2;
XXXXXXXXX; Honorably Discharged.
(b) 10 January 1982 –30 June 1987; US Army; 0-3; XXX-XX-
XXXX; Honorably Discharged.”
(6) Physical Health:
   Mr. Scott appears to be physically capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Mr. Scott appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of
the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Mr. Scott was admitted to the SC Bar in 1981.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) Member of the US Army Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps,
from January 1982 through May 1987, during which I served as:
   (1) Trial Defense Counsel assigned to the 24th Infantry Division
(now known as the 3rd Infantry Division) and Fort Stewart Georgia,
from April 1982 until August 1984. In this position, I appeared in over

  [HJ]                           55
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

100 courts martial proceedings in which I represented members of the
US military accused of criminal offenses. I also represented military
service members in administrative proceedings.
   (2) Claims Judge Advocate with the US Army Claims Service,
from August 1984 through June 1987. In this position, I was
responsible for investigating, and assisting in the supervision,
management and resolution of federal tort claims at military
installations and involving US Army Corps of Engineer activities. I
investigated and resolved claims which included: property damage
claims, personal injury claims resulting from motor vehicle collisions,
and Corp of Engineer activities; medical malpractice claims, involving
catastrophic injuries such as brain damage and wrongful death.
   This position required me to prepare detailed legal memoranda for
consideration of the Judge Advocate General of the Army, the
Secretary of the Army and the US Department of Justice.
(b) Associate with the law firm of Johnson, Toal & Battiste, P. A.,
June 1987 until November 1988.
   I represented parties in civil, criminal, and administrative matters,
and appeared in summary courts, Probate Court, Family Court, the
Court of Common Pleas and the Court of General Sessions. I also
represented parties in appellate matters and appeared, during my tenure
with this law firm, before the SC Court of Appeals, the SC Supreme
Court and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. During my
association with this firm, I was entrusted to handle, on my own,
professional liability matters and serious criminal cases.
(c) Legal Counsel with the SC Department of Mental Retardation
(now known as the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs) from
November 1988 through August 1989.
   In this position, I provided legal representation to departmental
officers and employees, and represented the agency in administrative
hearings, such as intra agency employee grievance matters, and at the
Budget and Control Board level, before the State Employee Grievance
Committee.
(d) Associate General Counsel, USC, from Sep. 1989- Jan. 1994.
   In this position, I provided representation to USC officers and
employees, to include members of the President’s Office and deans and
departmental chair persons.
   I prepared presentations for consideration by the Board of Trustees
and other Officers of the University, and for state and federal agencies.
I provided counsel and representation regarding issues involving first
amendment freedoms, intellectual property, academic freedom, real

  [HJ]                            56
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

property, federal and state labor and employment law, and state and
federal regulatory issues. I also represented the University in
administrative proceedings and in civil matters in the state courts.
(e) Private Practice of Law Since January 31, 1994.
    Since reentering private practice in 1994, I have represented clients
in civil, criminal and administrative matters, to include:
    State and federal tort claims and other personal injury matters; state
employee grievances and other state administrative matters; workers
compensation; probate court matters; domestic relations; adoptions;
juvenile matters; military criminal and administrative matters;
representation of veterans in veterans benefits matters; represent clients
in federal administrative matters, including EEOC, Merit Systems
Protection Board, DOD administrative matters and social security
cases.
    (1) From May 1996 through December 1998, I was a member of a
partnership known as Gibbs, Scott and Redmond (the main office of
which was in Florence). I operated primarily out of the Columbia
Office.
    (2) From April 2000 through August 2004, I served as a part-time
contract employee with the Newberry County Public Defender’s
Office. I appeared in court in at least two hundred cases while serving
as a part time employee with the Newberry County Public Defender’s
Office between April 2000 through August 2004. I participated in four
General Sessions jury trials as a part time public defender during that
period.
    (3) In addition to maintaining a private practice, since the spring of
2006, I have served as a special contract employee of the USC, Office
of General Counsel. In that role, I provide legal advice and
representation to University officials regarding various legal matters,
including contractual matters, investigations, representation of the
University in employee and student grievances, EEO complaints, and
litigation.
    Mr. Scott further stated:
    “I have been in private practice continuously since January 31, 194,
when I left the full-time employ of the University of South Carolina.
This includes the periods during which I served as a contract part-time
public defender of the Newberry County Public Defender’s Office, and
during my service as a part-time contract employee of the Office of
General Counsel of the University of South Carolina. With the
exception of the period during which I was a part of Gibbes, Scott and


  [HJ]                            57
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Redmond (May 1996 through December 1998), my law office has
operated under the name Clifford Scott, Attorney at Law.”
    Mr. Scott reported the frequency of his court appearances during the
past five years as follows:
(a) Federal:
    I filed two actions in federal court during the past five years: One
was a federal tort claim action, which settled at mediation, and no court
appearance was required. The other action was a petition to quash a
subpoena issued by the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector
General. The Court ruled on the motion based upon the pleadings and
memoranda filed with the court. No court appearance was required. I
appeared in Federal Court In the fall of 2010 in a criminal matter
before a federal Magistrate. The matter involved a citation issued to an
immigrant working on Fort Jackson without a work permit.
(b) State:
    General Sessions: Approximately 6 (including trial; guilty pleas,
bond Hearings). Common Pleas: Approximately 15 (including trial,
motions, appeal from summary court). Summary Court: Approximately
15 (including trial, preliminary hearings, bond hearings).
    Mr. Scott reported the percentage of his practice involving civil,
criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil:         50%;
(b) criminal: 5%;
(c) domestic: 5%;
(d) other:         40% Administrative; VA; Military; wills/probate;
business counseling;      agency representation.”
    Mr. Scott reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during
the past five years as follows:
(a) jury: Of the five Common Pleas jury trial cases in which I have
been          involved during the last five years, I tried one of those
cases. The other 4 cases were settled during or after the discovery
period.
(b) non-jury: During the last five years, I tried three non jury
Common Pleas cases.
    Mr. Scott provided that he most often served as Sole Counsel.
    The following is Mr. Scott’s account of his five most significant
litigated matters:
(a) United States vs. Charles Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184 (4th Cir. 1988)
    This case was an appeal from the Federal District Court of SC to the
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and involved issues of
double jeopardy. I prepared the brief and argued the case. The case

  [HJ]                             58
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

was argued on December 4, 1987 and decided on March 8, 1988. In
the version of the case which appears online, the case erroneously
indicates I am/was from New York.
(b) Unfortunately I do not remember the case name, and my call to
the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (which, at the time, was
the US Court of Military Appeals) did not prove fruitful. The case
occurred in 1983 or 1984, while I was a member of the US Army Judge
Advocate General's Corps, stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The
Army brought a discharged soldier back on active duty to court-martial
him for an offense which occurred prior to his discharge. I challenged
the Army's right to do so and filed a petition and brief with the US
Court of Military Appeals. The case was significant, because, as I
recall, this was an issue which was unsettled at the time. Additionally,
as I recall, the court issued an order staying the court-martial
proceedings. As a result, we were able to resolve the case through a
negotiated resolution.
(c) State vs. Magwood; tried in Charleston County Court of General
Sessions in June 2011. The case was significant, because it involved a
prominent member of the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office who was
charged with misconduct in office.
(d) State vs. Lynch ; tried in Lee County in mid 2000s. The case was
significant, because it involved two defendants who were charged with
starting a riot and taking hostages at the Lee County Correctional
Institution. The case received prominent media coverage throughout
the state at the time of the prison riot.
(e) Easaw vs. Dept. of the Army; tried in 2009, before an EEOC
administrative law judge and involved allegations of race
discrimination in hiring of a motor vehicle operator at Fort Jackson. I
consider the case to be significant, because, as of that time, as I
understand it, this was one of few cases of this type in which an EEOC
administrative judge ruled against Fort Jackson.
   The following is Mr. Scott’s account of the five civil appeals he has
personally handled:
(a) The last time I handled a civil case in the SC Court of Appeals
was in the Late 1980s, and I do not recall the name of the case.
(b) Sara Davis v. University of South Carolina; (Employee Grievance
Matter) Appealed from Budget and Control Board to Administrative
Law Court Docket Number: 2008-ALJ-30-0389-AP. I represented the
Respondent, USC.
(c) Singleton v. Bland; 2007-CP-40-3944; appeal from Magistrate
Court to Court of Common Pleas.

  [HJ]                           59
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(d) Sara Leonard v. Standard Corporation; 2005-CP-28-113; Appeal
from Workers’ Compensation Commission to Court of Common Pleas.
(e) Mary F. Young v. SC Budget and Control Board Employee
Insurance Program; 2004-CP-40-4291; Appeal to Court of Common
Pleas.
   The following is Mr. Scott’s account of the criminal appeals he has
personally handled:
(a) United States vs. Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184 (4th Cir. 1988);
(b) State vs. Moody. This was an appeal I handled in the SC Supreme
Court in 1987 or 1988
 (9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Mr. Scott’s temperament would be
excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Midlands Citizen’s Committee on Judicial Qualification found
Mr. Scott to be “Well qualified” for each of the nine evaluative criteria:
constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic
ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability,
experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in
summary that the “Committee believes that Mr. Scott is a highly
regarded and eminently qualified candidate. We are confident that he
would serve on the Circuit Court in a most outstanding manner.”
   Mr. Scott is married to Malvina G. Scott. He has two children.
   Mr. Scott reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar;
(b) For several years, beginning in approximately 1998, I served on
the SC Bar Foundation Board;
(c) I was also a member of the Introduction Subcommittee of the SC
Bar's Task Force on Diversity and Inclusiveness during the above time
period;
(d) Former member of the SC Bar’s House of Delegates;
(e) During the mid 1990s, I was vice president and president of the
SC Black Lawyers Association, and I currently serve as assistant
treasurer of that organization.
   Mr. Scott provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
   Pee Dee Area Veterans Advisory Council (former member).
   Mr. Scott further reported:
      “I come from a humble background. In fact, I am not ashamed to
say that for most of my upbringing, I was very poor. However, my

  [HJ]                            60
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

economic status during my formative years did not cause me to believe
that I was less than anyone else, or that, conversely, others were better
than me.
   I graduated from a segregated Williamsburg County high school in
1973 (St. Mark Elementary and High School). While our school did not
possess the resources of schools in more affluent communities, our
teachers and our principal tried to instill in each of us qualities which
would enable us to go into the world and make a positive contribution.
   I would like to think that I have contributed something positive to
society, although probably not as much as I could have contributed at
this point in my life. I hope, if I am given the privilege and honor of
serving as a member of the SC judiciary, that I will be able to make an
even more meaningful contribution to our society, by upholding the
laws that preserve the freedoms which still cause so many to flock to
the shores of the US.
   Since becoming an attorney, my background has been quite varied. I
believe the variety of my experiences, and the length of time I have
practiced law will aid me tremendously in deciding matters that come
before me, and in dispensing justice impartially and evenhandedly.
   I have read the letters of recommendation which have been provided
in my behalf. I am truly humbled by those letters.
   When I was a very young adult, perhaps not more than 19 or 20
years old, my great aunt (the sister of my maternal grandmother) told
me that I was “one in a hundred.” She obviously saw something in me
that caused her to believe that I had the potential to do great things in
life. The extent to which I have done anything great, I leave for others
to decide.
   Service as a judge is an honor and a privilege. I can think of no
better way to live up to the potential which my great aunt saw in me. I
recognize some readers of this statement may think this is a bit sappy,
but it’s truly how I feel. Therefore, to the extent this statement aids
those who will determine my qualifications to sit as a member of the
Circuit Court, I would like each reader to know that the sentiments
expressed in this statement are sincere and reflect my true feelings.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented that Mr. Scott made a good
presentation at the Public Hearing. They noted his diverse legal
background would equip him well for service on the Circuit Court
bench.



  [HJ]                            61
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Mr. Scott qualified and nominated him for
election to the Circuit Court.

                 The Honorable Roger Lynn Couch
                  Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Couch meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Couch was born in 1950. He is 61 years old and a resident of
Spartanburg, SC. Judge Couch provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Couch.
   Judge Couch demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Couch reported that he has not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge Couch testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Couch testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Couch to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Couch described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Annual Judicial Conference         All of the last five years;

  [HJ]                           62
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(b) Circuit Judges Assn. Meeting All of the last five years;
(c) SC Bar Annual Convention Civil and Criminal Updates All of the
past five years.
   Judge Couch reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I have made presentations at CLE Programs offered by the SC Bar
on a couple of occasions;
(b) I taught a Business Law Course at Spartanburg Methodist College in
the late 1970s;
(c) I assisted Mathew Henderson as a lecturer in Business Law at
Wofford College in the 1980s.
(d) I have been invited to lecture next year at Converse College.
      Judge Couch reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Couch did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Couch did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Couch has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Couch was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Couch reported that his rating by a legal rating organization,
Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
   Judge Couch reported that he held the following public office:
      “I served as an elected School Board Member in Spartanburg
County School District 6 from March 1976 until June 1997. During that
time I timely filed all necessary reports with the State Ethics Commission
and was never subject to a penalty.”
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Couch appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Couch appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Couch was admitted to the SC Bar in 1975.


  [HJ]                            63
                    THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Couch gave the following account of his legal experience
since graduation from law school:
   (a) 1975-77 Henderson & Lister;
   (b) 1977-80 Henderson, Lister Couch Brandt & Ackerman;
   (c) 1980-85 Henderson, Lister Couch & Brandt;
   (d) 1985-89 Lister and Couch;
   (e) 1989-97 Lister, Couch & Courtney.
   I was always involved in the general practice of law with particular
focus on real estate transactions, family court litigation, wills, estates and
trusts and general litigation.
   Judge Couch reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
   (a) 1985-89 Town Judge in Cowpens, SC, jurisdiction limited to
enforcing town ordinances and traffic laws;
   (b) 1997-2004 Master-in-Equity for Spartanburg County, Non-jury
Civil Circuit Court issues;
   (c) 2004-Present Circuit Court Judge Seventh Circuit, Seat #2.
   The following is Judge Couch’s account of his five most significant
orders or opinions:
(a) State v. Torres; 390 S.C. 618; 701 S.E.2d 226 (2010);
(b) Mathis v. Brown and Brown of South Carolina, Inc., 389 S.C. 299,
698 S.E. 2d 773, (2010)
(c) McMaster, ex rel. v. Eli Lilly & Co, Inc. Pre-trial Motions Order, 07-
CP-42-1855;
(d) New York Times Co. v. Sptg. Co. School District No. 7, 274 S.C.
307; 649 S.E. 2d 28 (2007);
(e) Wilson el rel. v. Jannsen Pharmaceuticals Pre Trial Order, 07-CP-
42-1438.
   Judge Couch reported the following as to his unsuccessful candidacy
for elective, judicial, or other public office:
      “I ran unsuccessfully for the S.C. House of Representatives in
1988.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Couch’s temperament has been
and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Upstate Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found
Judge Couch to be “Qualified” in the criteria of constitutional
qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee
found Judge Couch to be “Well-qualified” for the remaining evaluative
criteria: ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character,
reputation, experience, and judicial temperament.

  [HJ]                              64
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Couch is married to Joy A. Couch. He has two children and a
step-child.
   Judge Couch reported that he is a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) Spartanburg County Bar Assn. 1975 to present;
(b) SC Bar Assn. 1975 to present;
(c) American Bar Assn. 2011 to present.
   Judge Couch reported that he is a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
(a) Spartanburg Rotary Club;
(b) The Piedmont Club;
(c) The Group of 100.
(11) Commission Members’ Comments
   The Commission commented that they were impressed by Judge
Couch’s excellent temperament and thoughtful demeanor which have
assisted him in his service as a Circuit Court judge for seven years.
(12) Conclusion
   The Commission found Judge Couch qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

            The Honorable Eugene Cannon Griffith, Jr.
                 Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Griffith meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Griffith was born in 1964. He is 47 years old and a resident of
Newberry, SC. Judge Griffith provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1991.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Griffith.
   Judge Griffith demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Griffith reported that he not made any campaign expenditures.

  [HJ]                           65
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Griffith testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Griffith testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Griffith to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Griffith described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) SC Solicitors Conf.: Prosecution Accountability 09/24/2006;
(b) SC Solicitors Conf.: Partners in Prosecution 09/24/2007;
(c) SC Association for Justice Annual Convention          08/09/2008;
(d) Circuit Court Judges Conference         05/06/2009;
(e) New Judges Orientation 07/08/2009;
(f) SC Association for Justice Annual Convention          08/06/2009;
(g) Annual Judicial Conference         08/19/2009;
(h) SC Defense Lawyers’ Convention 11/2009;
(i) Annual Civil Law Update 01/22/2010;
(j) Annual Criminal Law Update           01/22/2010;
(k) Circuit Court Judges Conference         05/05/2010;
(l) SC Association for Justice: Annual Convention         08/09/2010;
(m) Annual Judicial Conference         08/19/2010;
(n) General Jurisdiction National Judicial College 10/10-21/2010;
(o) Ethics: National Judicial College 10/10-21/2010;
(p) Annual Civil Law Update SC Bar Annual Meeting 01/21/11;
(q) Annual Criminal Law Update SC Bar Annual Meeting 01/21/11;
(r) SC Circuit Court Judges' Conference         05/05/11.
   Judge Griffith reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I taught the legal section in Newberry County to students who
enrolled in the Reserve Police Officer Certification Classes. Over the
past ten years, I have taught four or five groups of candidates.
(b) In 1999, I taught the Legal unit to the Volunteers for the Newberry
County Guardian ad litem program.


  [HJ]                           66
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(c) Panel Member for Case Law Updates at SC Public Defenders
Annual Conference. September 2009.
(d) Panel Member for Case Law Updates at SC Solicitors Association
Annual Conference. September 2010.
   Judge Griffith reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Griffith did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Griffith did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Griffith has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Griffith was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Griffith reported that his last available rating by a legal rating
organization, Martindale-Hubble, was BV.
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Griffith appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Griffith appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Griffith was admitted to the SC Bar in 1991.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) March 1991-July 1991: Clerk to the Honorable James E. Moore,
Circuit Court.
(b) July 1991-June 1992: Clerk to the Honorable John P. Gardner, S.C.
Ct. of App.
(c) July 1992-February 1997: solo practice as Griffith Law Firm –
general practice of law. My office handled real estate transactions,
mortgage closings, magistrate’s trial work, criminal trial defense, civil
trial work, domestic relations trial work, and estate and probate matters.
(d) February 1997-February 2009: In February 1997, Rushing and
Griffith, P.C. was formed by Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. and Elizabeth R.
Griffith. The scope and type of law practice did not change significantly
and was operated as a general practice. Don S. Rushing bought into the

  [HJ]                             67
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

corporation and opened an office in Lancaster, SC. Don S. Rushing has
operated a limited practice in the Lancaster office. Towards the end of
my practice the type of work performed in the Newberry office changed
slightly. In January 2005, I agreed to work as a special prosecutor for the
Eighth Judicial Circuit for the terms of General Sessions Court held in
Newberry County. After agreeing to act as special prosecutor, I was
unable to accept cases as a criminal defense attorney. I also handled
numerous condemnation actions on behalf of the SCDOT. I was also
appointed under Circuit Court rules in numerous civil cases to act as
special referee for non-jury matters, such as partitions and foreclosures.
(e) February 27, 2009 – present: Resident Circuit Court Judge for the
Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
(f)May 2010 – present: Chief Administrative Judge for the Eighth
Judicial Circuit.
   Judge Griffith reported that he has held the following judicial office:
      “I was elected to the SC Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial
Circuit, Seat 2 on February 11, 2009 and was qualified on February 27,
2009.”
   Judge Griffith provided the following regarding his most significant
orders or opinions:
   Since I have only been on the bench for 29 months, I have only had
one of my decisions complete the appeal process. I have listed other
cases which I consider significant:
(a) State v. Bobby Lee Burdine 2011- UP – 285 Appeal affirmed
decision to allow a resisting arrest conviction be based upon an arrest for
disorderly conduct episode which occurred on private property but within
the purview of public.
(b) Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Parker Young, J. David Chestnut and the
Erskine Alumni Association v. General Synod of the Associated
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Inc. - This case involved a conflict
among Members of the ARP General Synod and several displaced Board
Members regarding the reduction of the number of Board of Directors to
Erskine College.
(c) Fay v. County of Laurens, City of Clinton, et alius. This case
involved a pro se litigant challenging the issuance of a bond by the
County of Laurens to construct infrastructure in the City of Clinton.
(d) Farrow v. Darby - This case involved a novel issue of law dealing
with the inferred negligence of improperly maintaining domestic
livestock when the wayward steer was never found after the accident.



  [HJ]                             68
                    THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(e) Dent v. Executive Relocations Service – This case involved an issue
dealing with the assignment of a third-party cause of action by an at-fault
party to a plaintiff after the settlement of the first party cause of action.”
   Judge Griffith further reported the following regarding unsuccessful
candidacies:
     “I was an unsuccessful candidate for House of Representatives
District 40 in November 2002. I lost the general election to Walton J.
McLeod. And, I was a candidate for the Circuit Court At-Large Seat
No. 13 in February 2008. I withdrew to allow the Honorable Larry
Hyman to be elected unopposed to that seat.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Griffith’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Piedmont Citizens Committee found Judge Griffith “Qualified”
with respect to the following evaluative criteria: constitutional
qualifications, physical health, and professional and academic ability.
The Committee found Judge Griffith “Well qualified” with respect to
the following evaluative criteria: ethical fitness, character, reputation,
experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in
summary, “Judge Griffith is eminently qualified to be re-elected a
circuit judge.”
   Judge Griffith is married to Elizabeth Rushing Griffith. He has three
children.
   Judge Griffith reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) Newberry County Bar Association: Secretary/Treasurer 1992-93;
Vice-President 1994-1995; President 1996-98;
(b) SC Bar Association, Member: 1991-present;
(c) SC Association for Justice (formerly SCTLA), Member: 1993-2009;
(d) American Association for Justice (formerly ATLA), Member: 1995-
2009;
(e) American Bar Association, Member: 1991-2009; Judicial Division
2009-present;
(f) Newberry County Public Defender Corporation Board: 1994-2004.
   Judge Griffith provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Central United Methodist Church: Administrative Board Chair-
2001-03, Treasurer 2006-08; MYF Youth Parent 2008-present;
(b) Prosperity Recreation Department, Dixie Youth Baseball: Assistant
Coach 2000-2011; Head Coach 2008;

  [HJ]                              69
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(c) Newberry County Chamber of Commerce: Member 2006-February
2009;
(d) Newberry County Tax Advisory Committee: 2006-February 2009.
   Judge Griffith further reported:
     “I do not know of any information which would negatively affect
my candidacy. I do believe that the patience taught to me by my
parents is a positive attribute which helps me every day in performing
my duties as a judge. I also believe that practicing in a small town in a
one-lawyer office provided me with a breadth of experience in dealing
with legal issues but more particularly dealing with people which helps
in my duties as a judge.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission noted that Judge Griffith is known for his good
judicial temperament and great work ethic in the almost three years he
has served on the Circuit Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Judge Griffith qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

               The Honorable Kristi Lea Harrington
                   Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Harrington meets
the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit
Court judge.
   Judge Harrington was born in 1969. She is 42 years old and a
resident of Hanahan, SC. Judge Harrington provided in her application
that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five
years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 2001. Also, she has
been a licensed attorney in Oklahoma since 1996.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Harrington.
   Judge Harrington demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.


  [HJ]                            70
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Harrington reported that she has not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge Harrington testified she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Harrington testified that she is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Harrington to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Harrington described her past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) Trial Advocacy I 06/19/06;
(b) Jessie’s Law 06/30/06;
(c) Child Sex Abuse Investigation 04/04/07;
(d) Confronting the Challenge of          09/12/07;
(e) Annual Solicitors Conference          09/23/07;
(f) Orientation School 07/09/08;
(g) Judicial Conference         08/20/08;
(h) Civil Law Update         01/23/09;
(i) Judicial Conference         08/19/09;
(j) Civil Law Update         01/22/10;
(k) Criminal Law Update, part 2 01/22/10;
(l) General Jurisdiction -- NJC        05/16/10;
(m) Inns of Court       11/10/10;
(n) Criminal Law Section 01/21/11;
(o) Trial and Appellate Advocacy Section 01/21/11;
(p) A little bit of this and a little 02/11/11.
   Judge Harrington reported that she has taught the following
law-related courses:
(a) Trial Advocacy. Charleston School of Law. April 21, 2011. Presided
over a mock trial.
(b) iCivics Training. April 8, 2011. Spoke on Constitutional Law.
(c) Charleston Lawyers Club CLE. February 25, 2011. Spoke on
courtroom decorum and docketing procedures.


  [HJ]                           71
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(d) “Perspectives from the Bench.” Charleston School of Law. March
23, 2011. Discussed several issues concerning courtroom etiquette and
decorum with law students.
(e) Professionalism Series Lecture. Charleston School of Law. March
3, 2011. Spoke on various topics of the law and how to relate with the
judiciary.
   Judge Harrington reported that she has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Harrington did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against her. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Harrington did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge
Harrington has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Harrington was punctual and
attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Harrington reported that she is not rated by any legal rating
organization.
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Harrington appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Harrington appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Harrington was admitted to the SC Bar in 2001.
   Judge Harrington gave the following account of her legal experience
since graduation from law school:
(a) September 1996-February 2001. Tulsa County District Attorney’s
Office. Staff attorney. Prosecuted juvenile, misdemeanor and felony
cases.
(b) February 2001-February 2002. Law office of Carter D. Harrington.
Assisted in preparing legal documents and preparing attorney for court.
(c) February 2002-February 2008. Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitors
Office. Staff attorney. Prosecuted felony cases.
   Judge Harrington reported that she has held the following judicial
office:


  [HJ]                           72
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

      “I was elected to the Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2,
on February 6, 2008.”
   The following is Judge Harrington’s account of her five most
significant orders or opinions:
(a) State v. Jacobs;
(b) State v. Goss;
(c) Singleton v. Allied;
(d) State v. Goodwin;
(e) Geddings v. D&L.
   Judge Harrington reported the following regarding her employment
while serving as a judge:
      “I currently am an adjunct instructor at Strayer University. I have
been employed there since 2008. I currently teach Business Law and
Criminal Justice. My supervisor is Dean Rufus Robinson.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Harrington’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Lowcountry Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications
found Judge Harrington to be “Well qualified” for all nine evaluative
criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and
academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental
stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated
in summary: “Judge Harrington is an outstanding candidate. The
Committee received very favorable comments on this candidate. Judge
Harrington has done an outstanding job for the Ninth Circuit.”
   Judge Harrington is divorced. She has one child.
   Judge Harrington reported that she was a member of the following
bar associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar Association;
(b) Oklahoma Bar Association;
(c) Petigru Inn of Court (Charter Member);
(d) American Bar Association;
(e) Berkeley County Bar Association;
(f) Charleston County Bar Association;
(g) SC Women Lawyers Association.
   Judge Harrington provided that she was a member of the following
civic, charitable, educational, social or fraternal organizations:
(a) Howe Hall PTA;
(b) Liberty Fellowship;
(c) Berkeley County Youth Court;

  [HJ]                            73
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(d) Eastern Star.
   Judge Harrington further reported:
     “My current term has been the most professionally and personally
rewarding part of my legal career. I have had the opportunity to
preside over many trials and hearings. As such, I have realized the
important role that my decisions make in people’s personal and
professional lives.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments
   The Commission noted that Judge Harrington is committed to
excellence on the Circuit Court bench based on her comments she
made at the public hearing.
(12) Conclusion
   The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for re-
election to the Circuit Court.

           The Honorable Alexander Stephens Macaulay
                  Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

    Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Macaulay meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Macaulay was born in 1942. He is 69 years old and a resident
of West Union, SC. Judge Macaulay provided in his application that
he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years
and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1970.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Macaulay.
   Judge Macaulay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Macaulay reported that he has not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge Macaulay testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;

  [HJ]                           74
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Macaulay testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Macaulay to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Macaulay described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) Trial & Appellate Advocacy 01/21/11;
(b) Criminal Law Section 01/21/11;
(c) SCDTAA Convention           11/11/10;
(d) Judicial Conference       08/18/10;
(e) SCAJ Convention        08/05/10;
(f) New Judges’ School        07/07/10;
(g) Cir. Judges Ass. 05/05/10;
(h) Oconee Bar Seminar 03/19/10;
(i) Judicial Conference       08/19/09;
(j) New Judges’ School        07/08/09;
(k) Judicial Conference       05/06/09;
(m) Oconee Bar Seminar 05/01/09;
(n) Civil Law Update       01/25/08;
(o) Criminal Law Update 01/25/08;
(p) SCDTAA Convention 11/01/07;
(q) Judicial Conference       08/22/07;
(r) New Judges’ School        07/01/07;
(s) Civil Law Update       01/26/07;
(t) Criminal Law Update 01/27/07;
(u) SCDTTA Convention 11/09/06;
(v) Judicial Conference       08/23/06;
(w) New Judges’ School        07/10/06;
(x) Oconee Bar Seminar 02/24/06;
(y) SC Bar Ethics 01/29/06;
(z) Criminal; Law Update 01/27/06;
(aa) Civil Law Update      01/27/06.
   Judge Macaulay reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:



  [HJ]                           75
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(a) I have taught the Criminal Law Section of the New Judges’
School since 2004 as a member of the Circuit Judges Advisory
Committee.
(b) I have lectured at the USC Law School on Torts Update for the SC
Bar CLE.
(c) I have made presentations on ethics and critical conflicts to the SC
Defense Trial Attorneys’ Association.
   Judge Macaulay reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Macaulay did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Macaulay did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge
Macaulay has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Macaulay was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Macaulay reported that his rating by a legal rating
organization, Martindale-Hubble, is AV.
   Judge Macaulay reported the following military service:
   “1964-175 (Vietnam 1966-67), United States Army, Medical Service
Corps, Captain (USAR), XXX-XX-XXXX, retired, Honorable
Discharge, 4 February 1975.”
   Judge Macaulay reported that he has held the following public
offices:
“(a) Appointed to the State Board of Education, representing the Tenth
Judicial Circuit, Anderson and Oconee Counties, 1979-80.
(b) Elected to the SC Senate: District One, Seat Three, representing
Abbeville, Anderson, Oconee and Pickens Counties, 1981-84; District
One, representing Anderson, Oconee and Pickens counties, 1985-92;
and District One, representing Oconee and Pickens counties, 1993-94.”
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Macaulay appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Macaulay appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:

  [HJ]                           76
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Macaulay was admitted to the SC Bar in 1970.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) 1970-72: Assistant Attorney General of SC, representing the State
and its subdivisions in criminal and civil trials and appeals in all levels
of the State and Federal Courts, and as counsel for various state
agencies, to include DSS, ABC and DOT;
(b) 1973-94: Private practice in civil and criminal trial and appeals,
including torts and contracts — representing individual and corporate
defendants and plaintiffs in eminent domain proceedings, commercial
and property transactions, domestic and estate matters and municipal
affairs, having served as attorney for the Towns of Seneca and
Walhalla.
(c) Miley and Macaulay, 1973-76;
(d) Miley, Macaulay and Boggs, 1976-80;
(e) Miley, Macaulay, Day and Agnew, PA, 1981-84;
(f) Miley and Macaulay, 1984-86;
(g) Miley, Macaulay and Cain, PA, 1986-88;
(h) Miley and Macaulay, 1988-1994.
   Judge Macaulay further reported the following regarding an
unsuccessful candidacy:
   “Unsuccessful in the June 1970 Democratic Primary for nomination
to be a candidate for the SC House of Representatives from Richland
County.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Macaulay’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Upstate Citizens Committee found Judge Macaulay “Qualified”
with respect to the following evaluative criteria: constitutional
qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee
found Judge Macaulay “Well qualified” with respect to the following
evaluative criteria: ethical fitness, professional and academic ability,
character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament.
   Judge Macaulay is married to Maria Locke Boineau Macaulay. He
has two children.
   Judge Macaulay reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar Association;
(b) Oconee County Bar Association, President 1980;
(c) American Bar Association.

  [HJ]                             77
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Macaulay provided that he was a member of the following
civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Walhalla Presbyterian Church, Elder and Sunday School Teacher;
(b) Tri-State Trout Club;
(c) Society of the Cincinnati for the State of SC;
(d) Huguenot Society of SC;
(e) St. Andrews’ Societies of Columbia and Upper SC;
(f) Society of the High Hills of Santee;
(g) Society of Lower Richland;
(h) South Caroliniana Society;
(i) South Carolina Historical Society;
(j) Tarantella Club of Columbia;
(k) Oconee Assembly;
(l) Columbia Cotillion Club;
(m) Caroliniana Ball.
Judge Macaulay further reported:
   “I was actively engaged in the practice of law from 1970 to 1994,
first, as an Assistant Attorney General, representing the State and its
citizens, and then in private practice, representing individual and
corporate plaintiffs and defendants, in civil and criminal matters, trials
and appeals. The cases were tried, or ultimate disposition made on
appeal, in all levels of courts of our State and the United States — from
County Magistrate Courts to the United States Supreme Court. Those
experiences gave me an appreciation for those who are or become
involved in our system of justice — the lawyers and their clients, the
court personnel and, most importantly, the citizens who are summoned
to court as witnesses and jurors.
   Since June 1994, I have presided over terms of Circuit Court, jury
and non-jury, civil and criminal, to include capital cases, trials and
appeals, throughout our State. On occasion, I have been privileged to
serve as an acting associate justice on our Supreme Court, even writing
opinions — not all of which were unanimous. Such experiences have
given me a deep respect for the rule of law. At times, I remind others
and myself that, as a judge, I must do what I have to do under the law
and not what I may want to do.
   As a former legislator, I know who establishes public policy and,
having served in the executive branch in the office of the Attorney
General and on the State Board of Education, I am aware of which
branch of government enforces and implements those policies.
Therefore, I am content to interpret and apply those policies made and
provided according to law.

  [HJ]                            78
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Nevertheless, the life experiences that have influenced me the most
were not from public service but growing up on a farm and serving in
the military. With each, I experienced and learned something about the
value of people. It is not who you are, what you have nor where you
are from that determines a persons’ worth but, rather, what you do with
what you have and if you can be relied upon. Therefore, we all deserve
to be treated fairly, with respect and courtesy.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented that Judge Macaulay pays close
attention to detail and is a very thorough judge, which serves him well
on the Circuit Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Judge Macaulay qualified and nominated
him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

                The Honorable William Paul Keesley
                  Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

    Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Keesley meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Keesley was born in 1953. He is 58 years old and a resident
of Edgefield, SC. Judge Keesley provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Keesley.
   Judge Keesley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Keesley reported that he not made any campaign expenditures.
   Judge Keesley testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;


  [HJ]                           79
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Keesley testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Keesley to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Keesley described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;
(b) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update, SC Bar 01/26/07;
(c) 5th Annual Civil Law Update, SC Bar        01/26/07;
(d) 2007 Annual Judicial Conference 08/22/07;
(e) Wofford College – The Constitution: The Third Branch 09/26/07;
(f) 23rd Annual SC Criminal Law Update, SC Bar 01/25/08;
(g) 6th Annual Civil Law Update, SC Bar        01/25/08;
(h) Spring Conference, SC Assoc. of Circuit Judges 05/14/08;
(i) 2008 Annual Judicial Conference 08/20/08;
(j) Commissions on Judicial Conduct/Atty. Conduct Training
   10/21/08;
(k) 7th Annual Civil Law Update, SC Bar        01/23/09;
(l) 24th Annual SC Criminal Law Update, SC Ba r 01/23/09;
(m) Spring Conference, SC Assoc. of Circuit Judges 05/06/09;
(n) 2009 Annual Judicial Conference 08/19/09;
(o) SC Defense Attorneys Association Annual Convention 11/05/09;
(p) 25th Annual SC Criminal Law Update, SC Bar 01/22/10;
(q) 8th Annual Civil Law Update, SC Bar        01/22/10;
(r) Spring Conference, SC Assoc. of Circuit Judges 05/05/10;
(s) Commissions on Judicial Conduct/Attorney Conduct Training
   10/26/10;
(t) 26th Annual SC Criminal Law Update         01/21/11;
(u) 9th Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/11;
(v) Spring Conference, SC Assoc. of Circuit Judges 05/04/11.
   Judge Keesley reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I was on a panel of speakers discussing the work of the Sentencing
Reform Commission for the 2010 Spring Conference of the SC
Association of Circuit Judges.


  [HJ]                          80
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(b) I spoke at a SC Bar sponsored CLE, Tips from the Bench IV in
2003 and at a seminar on evidence many years ago.
(c) I was on the faculty of the National Drug Court Institute and have
conducted training for drug court judges from across the United States,
the most recent being in 2003. The sites for those training sessions
were in San Diego, California; Columbia, Missouri; Dallas, Texas;
Buffalo, New York; and, Pensacola, Florida.
(d) I spoke at the National Association of Drug Court Professional’s
training conference in Miami, Florida on drug court issues.
(e) I have been a lecturer for CLE training and spoken several times at
meetings of the SC Association of Drug Court Professionals
concerning drug court.
(f) I have lectured at the SC Solicitors’ Convention on drug courts
and on a panel dealing with tips from the bench.
(g) I lectured to personnel of the SC Department of Corrections
annually for several years on drug courts.
(h) I spoke at the SC Annual Judicial Conference on drug courts and
participated in the 2010 Conference on the work of the Sentencing
Reform Commission, though I was not listed on the program.
(i) I spoke at the SC Public Defenders’ Association Annual Meeting,
discussing drug courts and observations from the bench. I was also
part of the ethics presentation when the new oath for attorneys was
implemented (which included the civility oath) and administered the
new oath to all the Public Defenders.
(j) I lectured to personnel of the SC Department of Probation, Parole
and Pardon Services concerning drug courts.
(k) I have been a speaker at the training given annually to the Chief
Judges for Administrative Purposes, discussing the administrative
functions of circuit judges.
(l) I lectured at the Pre-Trial Intervention Conference on the topic of
drug courts.
(m) I lectured at a CLE program held at the Medical University of SC
dealing with drug courts.
(n) I spoke at training conferences of the SC Department of Alcohol
and Other Drug Abuse Services (DAODAS) concerning drug courts.
   Judge Keesley reported that he has published the following:
Drug Courts, (S.C. Bar Lawyer, July/August 1998), Author.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Keesley did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Keesley did not

  [HJ]                           81
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Keesley has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Keesley was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Keesley reported the following regarding a rating by a legal
organization:
   “I never applied for a rating by Martindale-Hubbell or any other rating
organization. It was rarely used in my practice, and I saw no need to seek
to be rated.”
Judge Keesley reported that he has held the following public office:
   “I served in the SC House of Representatives, District 82, from
November 1988 to August 12, 1991. It is an elected position. The
ethics reports were properly filed.”
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Keesley appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Keesley appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Keesley was admitted to the SC Bar in 1978.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) 1978-80: Associate, John F. Byrd, Jr., Esq., Edgefield, SC, General
practice primarily involving real estate;
(b) 1980-83: Associate, J. Roy Berry, Esq., Johnston, SC, General
practice primarily domestic relations;
(c) 1983-91: Sole practitioner, Johnston, SC, General practice;
(d) From 1983-87, part-time Public Defender for four counties;
(e) From 1983-89, part-time town attorney for Johnston, SC;
(f) From 1988-89, part-time Assistant Solicitor, 11th Judicial Circuit.
   Judge Keesley reported that he has held the following judicial office:
      “I have been the Resident Circuit Judge of the 11th Judicial
Circuit, Seat 1, elected by the General Assembly, serving since August
13, 1991. This is a court of general jurisdiction.”
   Judge Keesley provided the following list of his most significant
orders or opinions:


  [HJ]                            82
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(a) State v. Johnny Rufus Belcher, 385 S.C. 597, 685 S.E.2d 802
(2009). This case changed the law in South Carolina and held that the
jury should no longer be instructed that malice may be inferred from
the use of a deadly weapon when evidence is presented that would
reduce, mitigate, excuse or justify a killing or attempted killing.
(b) Bursey v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 369
S.C. 176, 631 S.E.2d 899 (2006). This case dealt with the largest
mining project in the history of South Carolina, which took place with
the reconstruction of the Lake Murray Dam. It was a review of the
decision of the South Carolina Mining Council and concerned issues
under the Administrative Procedures Act.
(c) Johnson v. Catoe, 345 S.C. 389, 548 S.E.2d 587 (2001). The
South Carolina Supreme Court stayed the execution of a death row
inmate and appointed me to serve as a Special Referee to the Supreme
Court. I was given the task of evaluating whether a witness who had
claimed responsibility for killing a South Carolina Highway Patrol
Trooper was competent and credible.
(d) State v. Michael Rian Torrence, 322 S.C. 475, 473 S.E.2d 703
(1996). The South Carolina Supreme Court designated me to serve as
a Special Referee in this death penalty case to evaluate whether the
defendant was competent to waive his right to appeal and proceed to be
executed.
(e) Calcaterra v. City of Columbia, 315 S.C. 196, 432 S.E.2d 498
(S.C.App. 1993). This case established that a municipality may charge
higher rates to non-resident users of municipal water systems.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Keesley’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Midlands Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found
Judge Keesley “Well qualified” for all nine evaluative criteria:
constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic
ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability,
experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in
summary: “Judge Keesley is a truly an asset to our State and our
judiciary. We were truly honored to interview him, and we enjoyed
our interview. The committee has the utmost appreciation for his
honorable service on the Circuit Court, the drug court, and in the
community. We believe he is most eminently qualified to continue his
service on the Circuit Court, and we are confident he would continue to
serve in an outstanding manner.”

  [HJ]                            83
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge Keesley is married to Linda Fay Black Keesley. He has one
child.
   Judge Keesley reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar;
(b) Edgefield County Bar Association, President 1985, Treasurer for
many years;
(c) SC Association of Circuit Judges, Vice-President, 2010-11, Sec.,
1991-2010;
(d) SC Assoc. of Drug Court Professionals, President, 1997-98, Board
Member.
   Judge Keesley provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Mason, Concordia Lodge #20, Edgefield, SC (no offices held);
(b) Phi Beta Kappa (no offices held);
(c) Pine Ridge Country Club, Edgefield, SC social member (no
offices held).
   Judge Keesley further reported:
     “Twenty years of experience as a circuit judge.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission noted that Judge Keesley’s patience and calm
demeanor have served him well in performing his duties as an
outstanding Circuit Court judge for over 20 years.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Judge Keesley qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

                 The Honorable R. Knox McMahon
                  Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

    Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
  Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge McMahon meets
the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit
Court judge.
  Judge McMahon was born in 1947. He is 64 years old and a resident
of Lexington, SC. Judge McMahon provided in his application that he
has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and
has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

  [HJ]                           84
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge McMahon.
   Judge McMahon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge McMahon reported that he not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge McMahon testified he has not:
   (a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to
screening;
   (b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
   (c) asked third persons to contact members of the General
Assembly prior to screening.
   Judge McMahon testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge McMahon to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge McMahon described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
(a) 2006 Orientation for New Circuit 7/10/2006;
(b) Mandatory ADR Training 8/10/2006;
(c) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/2006;
(d) 2006 Annual SC Solicitors’ Conference          9/24/2006;
(e) 16th Annual Criminal Practice in SC         11/10/2006;
(f) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update           1/26/2007;
(g) 5th Annual Civil Law Update          1/26/2007;
(h) Circuit Court Judge’s Conference 5/16/2007;
(i) General Jurisdiction       7/15/2007;
(j) 2007 Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/2007;
(k) 2007 Annual Conference          9/23/2007;
(l) 23rd Annual SC Criminal Law Update 1/25/2008;
(m) 6th Annual Civil Law Update          1/25/2008;
(n) Domestic Violence & Coordinated           4/24/2008;
(o) 2008 Judicial Conference        8/20/2008;
(p) 7th Annual Civil Law Update          1/23/2009;
(q) 24th Annual SC Criminal Law Update 1/23/2009;

  [HJ]                          85
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(r) Circuit Court Judge’s Conference 5/6/2009;
(s) Annual Convention        8/6/2009;
(t) 2009 Annual Judicial Conference 8/19/2009;
(u) Litigation Conference in Conjunction      9/17/2009;
(v) 2009 SC Solicitors’ Association      9/28/2009;
(w) The Investigation and Prosecution of Domestic Violence
   10/30/2009;
(x) Civil Law Update 1/22/2010;
(y) Criminal Law Update- Part 2 1/22/2010;
(z) SC Circuit Court Judges’ Association Conference      5/5/2010;
(aa) SCAJ 2010 Annual Convention         8/5/2010;
(bb) 2010 Judicial Conference 8/18/2010;
(cc) Civil/Criminal Law Update (Video) 1/20/2011.
   Judge McMahon reported that he has taught the following law
related courses:
   (a) I presented the Recent Court Decisions for the 2006 and 2007
Annual SC Solicitors’ Association Conference.
   (b) I was part of a panel of Judges that presented “Views from the
Lexington Circuit Court Bench” at the Annual December “Attorney
CLE” for the Lexington County Bar Association on December 5, 2007.
   (c) I spoke on a panel entitled “Shareholder Disputes- Minority
Buyouts” at the 2009 Litigation Conference for the SC Association of
Certified Public Accountants held on September 17, 2009.
   (d) I was part of the Judicial Panel Discussion during the
presentation entitled “Courage to be a Prosecutor” sponsored by the
SC Solicitors’ Association and the SC Commission on Prosecution
Coordination on September 29, 2009.
   (e) I spoke on the topic of “Bond Settings and Revocations: Special
Considerations” at a CLE for The Investigation and Prosecution of
Criminal Domestic Violence on October 30, 2009.
   (f) I spoke on a panel of Judges called “Straight from the Bench”
during a Criminal Law Essentials CLE on May 20, 2011.
   Judge McMahon reported that he has not published any books or
articles.




  [HJ]                          86
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(4) Character:
    The Commission’s investigation of Judge McMahon did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge McMahon did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge
McMahon has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
    The Commission also noted that Judge McMahon was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
    Judge McMahon reported that he is not rated by any legal rating
organization.
    Judge McMahon reported the following military service:
    US Army Reserves, 1968-75, E-7 SFC, Honorable.
(6) Physical Health:
    Judge McMahon appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
    Judge McMahon appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge McMahon was admitted to the SC Bar in 1978.
    He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
    “After graduating from law school I entered into the private practice
of law with William (Bill) Cotty. Our practice focused on civil
litigation, real estate and criminal defense. I then opened my own
practice in Lexington with an emphasis on civil, criminal, and domestic
litigation.
    In 1981, I had the opportunity to return to the Lexington County
Sheriff’s Department as Legal Advisor. This was a developing area in
police agencies in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This position
combined my legal education with my law enforcement training and
experience.
    In 1983, I transferred to the 11th Circuit Solicitor’s Office as an
assistant solicitor. I prosecute many significant violent cases and was
promoted to Deputy Solicitor in 1986. Upon the election of W. Barney
Giese in 1995, I transferred to the 5th Circuit Solicitor’s Office. I was
team leader for the newly created Violent Crime Task Force being
responsible for the supervision of the team and the prosecution of many

  [HJ]                            87
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

violent offenders in Richland County. I was assigned as a Special
Assistant Attorney General and prosecuted violent offenders in the 3rd,
4th and 8th Circuits during my career in addition to the 5th and 11th
Circuit responsibilities.
    In 2003, I retired with twenty-eight years of service and joined the
firm of James C. Anders P.A. and Associates focusing on civil
litigation and criminal defense. Upon Mr. Anders’ death I joined the
firm of Whetstone, Myers, Perkins and Young, P.A. (now Whetstone,
Myers, Perkins and Fulda, P.A.) with the same focus.
    I was elected Circuit Court Judge February 15, 2006, and sworn in
March 9, 2006. I have served continuously since that time.”
    Judge McMahon reported that he has held the following judicial
offices:
    (a) Lexington Municipal Judge, 1980-81 Limited to $200.00/30
days criminal, no civil jurisdiction;
    (b) Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, March 9, 2006-
Present.
    Judge McMahon provided the following list of his most significant
orders or opinions:
       (a) In State v. Ferris Geiger Singley, Opinion 26954, SC
Supreme Court filed April 4, 2011. The Defendant broke into his
mother’s residence and was charged with first degree           burglary,
kidnapping, and armed robbery. The Defendant held a 12.5%
    ownership interest in the residence. The Court denied the
Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict as to the charge of first
degree burglary. The Supreme Court examined and reaffirmed the
ruling that burglary was a crime against lawful possession           not
ownership interest.
    (b) In State v. Darrell Burgess, 703 S.E. 2d 512 The Defendant was
convicted of the drug related homicides of David Slice and Kim
Fauscette. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to
the decision not to remove a juror who realized after the jury
selection that the brother of Defendant Slice’s estranged wife worked
for him. Further, the Defendant argued that the Judge violated his
constitutional right to present a complete defense by excluding
evidence of third-party guilt. The Court examined the third-party guilt
issue and determined that the trial judge properly identified        and
applied the standard as proclaimed in State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98, 16
    S.E.2d 532, (1941).
    (c) In Lanier Construction Co., Inc. v. Bailey & Yobs, Inc., et al.,
681 S.E. 2d 909 The Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of a

  [HJ]                           88
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

motion for summary judgment in favor of the Defendant home-owners.
The Court of Appeals examined the homeowners’ duty of care as to the
contractor and affirmed the trial court’s ruling which denied the
contractor and subcontractor’s motions for reconsideration under Rule
59, SCRCP.
    (d) In Kirby A. Oblachinski v. Dwight Raymond Reynolds, et al.,
Opinion 26932 SC Supreme Court filed February 22, 2011 Dr.
Reynolds examined an alleged victim of sexual abuse and diagnosed
the victim with having been sexually abused. Mr. Oblachinski was
subsequently indicted for criminal sexual conduct with a minor;
however, the charges were dropped after it was determined that Dr.
Reynolds misdiagnosed the child. Mr. Oblachinski then brought a civil
law suit against those who wrongfully diagnosed him. The trial court
held that that Reynolds owed no duty of care to Mr. Oblachinski. The
Supreme Court of SC affirmed the circuit court’s granting of summary
judgment and held that no cause of action exists for a third party to sue
for negligent diagnosis of sexual abuse.
    (e) In State v. Branham, Opinion 4802 SC Court of Appeals file
March 2,2011 The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellant’s
conviction for driving under the influence, first offense. The
Appellants’ sole issue on appeal was whether the State failed to comply
with any statutory duty to produce the breath test site video pursuant to
56-5-2953. When analyzing the word “produce,” the court found that
the legislature intended that a video of the breath site be created. The
court did not find that the State may only stratify any statutory
obligation by physically handing or turning over the videotape to the
defendant or counsel; the State may produce the video online and
provide a password to the defendant for access.
    Judge McMahon reported the following regarding his employment
while serving as a judge:
    “I was a private practicing attorney with an emphasis on civil
litigation while I was a part time Lexington Municipal Judge.”
    Judge McMahon further reported the following regarding
unsuccessful candidacies:
    “Candidate for Circuit Judge at Large May 1999.”
(9) Judicial Temperament:
    The Commission believes that Judge McMahon’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
    The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge McMahon “Well
qualified” for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional

  [HJ]                            89
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability,
character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and
judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, “We were
honored to interview Judge McMahon and thoroughly enjoyed our
interview. We are all very proud he is one of [sic] State’s judges. He
is truly an asset to our state judiciary, and his service to our State has
been outstanding and honorable in every way. He is most eminently
qualified to continue his outstanding service on the Circuit Court
bench.”
   Judge McMahon is married to Connie Juanita (Nita) Derrick
McMahon. He has four children, one is deceased.
   Judge McMahon reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
   (a) SC Bar;
   (b) Lexington County Bar.
   Judge McMahon reported that he is not a member of any civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
   Judge McMahon further reported:
   “I have presided over more than 100 jury trials since being elected to
the bench. These have been civil and criminal trials. My background
prior to being elected to the bench was in criminal law. Many of the
cases I have presided over have been civil cases ranging from simple
negligence to breach of contract and medical malpractice to
construction defects. I have learned so much since my time on the
bench especially in the field of civil law and motions practice. I was
appointed by the Chief Justice to the Commission on Alternate Dispute
Resolution which has honed my civil administrative skills.
   I am also a member of a Committee chaired by Justice Kaye Hearn
examining ways to address and streamline the caseloads in Family,
Common Pleas and General Sessions Courts. I specifically am assigned
to the General Sessions Subcommittee chaired by Justice Costa
Pleicones. I would like to continue being a part of and contributed to
these endeavors.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission noted that Judge McMahon has an outstanding
reputation as a respectful and fair judge and they also noted his
involvement on committees to improve the court process.
(12) Conclusion:
   The Commission found Judge McMahon qualified and nominated
him for re-election to the Circuit Court.


  [HJ]                            90
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                 The Honorable Michael G. Nettles
                  Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

    Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

   Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 2-19-40, the chairman of the
Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Nettles upon
recommendation of the Commission members, since his candidacy for
re-election was uncontested and there was no substantial reason for
having a public hearing regarding his candidacy.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Nettles meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Nettles was born in 1959. He is 52 years old and a resident of
Lake City, SC. Judge Nettles provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Nettles.
   Judge Nettles demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
      Judge Nettles reported that he has not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge Nettles testified he has not:
   (a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to
screening;
   (b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
   (c) asked third persons to contact members of the General
Assembly prior to screening.
   Judge Nettles testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Nettles to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Nettles described his past continuing legal or judicial

  [HJ]                           91
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

education during the past five years as follows:
(a) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;
(b) 2006 Annual Solicitor’s Conference 09/24/06;
(c) National Judicial College General Jurisdiction 10/16-27/06;
(d) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update          01/26/07;
(e) 5th Annual Civil Law Update         01/26/07;
(f) 2007 Annual Judicial Conference 08/22/07;
(g) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/01/07;
(h) 23rd Annual SC Criminal Law Update 01/25/08;
(i) 6th Annual Civil Law Update         01/25/08;
(j) 2008 Judicial Conference       08/20/08;
(k) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/13/08;
(l) 7th Annual Civil Law Update         01/23/09;
(m) 24th Annual SC Criminal Law Update 01/23/09;
(n) Recent Developments in Peer         01/24/09;
(o) 2010 Judicial Conference       08/18/10;
(p) Sporting Clays CLE: Ethics with        10/28/10;
(q) Criminal Law Section 01/21/11;
(r) Trial & Appellate Advocacy Section 01/21/11;
(s) Circuit Court Judges’ Conference 05/04/11.
   Judge Nettles reported that he has taught or lectured at the following
bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing
legal or judicial educational programs:
   (a) I addressed the Solicitor Convention concerning new
developments in Criminal Law in 2007;
   (b) I addressed the Public Defender Convention concerning
Differential Case Management 2009;
   (c) I participated in Panel Discussions on Ethics CLE in 2010;
   (d) Guest Lecturer, Business Law course, Francis Marion
University 2008 and 2009.
   Judge Nettles reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Nettles did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Nettles did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Nettles has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Nettles was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and

  [HJ]                            92
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Nettles reported that prior to his election to the bench, his
rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was BV.
   Judge Nettles reported that he has held the following public office:
   Circuit Court for Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1; elected 2/2/05 and
began serving 1/3/06.
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Nettles appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Nettles appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Nettles was admitted to the SC Bar in 1984.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
      “I was engaged in the general practice of law in Lake City, SC as
a partner in the firm of Nettles, Turbeville & Reddick, for twenty years.
Over the last five years, I handled 959 cases (680 criminal, 176 civil,
37 real estate transactions, 26 domestic cases.) As the years
progressed, two of my partners have practiced real estate exclusively
and my sister has practiced domestic law exclusively. In the early
years of my practice, there was a more equal division of caseload.
During the last five years of my practice, I only handled domestic
matters and real estate transactions for ongoing clients.”
   Judge Nettles provided the following list of his most significant
orders of opinions:
   (a) Mitchell v. Fortis Insurance, 385 S.C. 570, 686 S.E.2d 176
(2010)
      In this case, a policyholder brought causes of action for Breach of
Contract and bad faith rescission against insurance company. The
jury awarded $15,150,000.00. Numerous orders were issued and
many evidentiary rulings were affirmed, however, the Supreme Court
reduced the verdict to $10,150,000.00;
   (b) Willis v. Wukela, 379 S.C. 126, 665 S.E.2d 171 (2008)
      SC Supreme Court affirmed my ruling, clarifying S.C. Code
Section 7-13-350 and its application;
   (c) Estate of Stokes v. Pee Dee Family Physicians, 389 S.C.343,
699 S.E.2d 143 (2010)
      This case clarifies the wrongful death statute and establishes that

  [HJ]                            93
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

this statute does not extend the statute of limitations. This decision
was affirmed by the SC Court of Appeals;
   (d) Bazen v. Badger R. Bazen Company, Inc., 388 S.C. 58, 693
S.E.2d 516 (2009)
      This case clarifies the calculation of average weekly wages within
the Workers’ Compensation statute;
   (e) James Nathaniel Bryant, III v. State of South Carolina
      I have enclosed the text of an order that I drafted denying
applicant’s request for Post Conviction Relief in this Capitol Murder
trial. This order is pending before the SC Supreme Court.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Nettles’ temperament has been
and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Judge Nettles to be
“Qualified” in the areas of constitutional qualifications, physical health,
and mental stability. Judge Nettles was found “Well qualified” for
ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation,
experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in
summary: “Judge Nettles enjoys an excellent reputation as a fair
minded, firm jurist with extensive knowledge of the law.”
   Judge Nettles is married to Donna Jean Nettles. He has three
children.
   Judge Nettles reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
   (a) Florence County Bar Association, Member and Treasurer in
1989; and
   (b) SC Bar Association, Bar Number 4198.
   Judge Nettles provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
Florence Country Club
   Judge Nettles further reported:
      “I was a volunteer coach in the Lake City Recreation Department,
coaching baseball, softball, and football. I am very active in the Lake
City First Baptist Church. I teach the Young Men’s Sunday School
Class and direct and participate in the Foreign Mission program.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented that Judge Nettles is a man of high
integrity and good character which assists his able service as a Circuit
Court judge.
(12) Conclusion:

  [HJ]                             94
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

  The Commission found Judge Nettles qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court Bench.

               The Honorable Perry M. Buckner, III
                Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

    Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge Buckner meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Judge Buckner was born in 1949. He is 62 years old and a resident
of Walterboro, SC. Judge Buckner provided in his application that he
has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and
has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge Buckner.
   Judge Buckner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge Buckner reported that he has made “less than $100.00” in
campaign expenditures for postage and stationary.
   Judge Buckner testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge Buckner testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge Buckner to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Judge Buckner described his continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) SC Bar Convention 1/27/06;

  [HJ]                           95
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(b) Annual Judicial Conference     8/23/06;
(c) SC Circuit Judges Conference      5/10/06;
(d) SC Circuit Judges Conference      5/16/07;
(e) Orientation School for New Circuit Judges      7/11/07;
(f) Annual Judicial Conference     8/22/07;
(g) SCSA Annual Conference 9/23/07;
(h) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/01/07;
(i) SC Bar Convention 1/24/08;
(j) Orientation School for New Circuit Judges      7/09/08;
(k) SCAJ Annual Meeting 8/7/08;
(l) Annual Judicial Conference     8/20/08;
(m) SC Bar Sporting Clays/Skeet Shoot 10/30/08;
(n) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/13/08;
(o) SC Bar Convention 1/23/09;
(p) SC Circuit Court Judges Conference 5/06/09;
(q) Orientation School for New Circuit Judges      7/08/09;
(r) SCAJ Annual Meeting 8/06/09;
(s) Annual Judicial Conference     8/19/09;
(t) 40 Hr Civil Mediation Training 1/04/10;
(u) SC Bar Convention 1/21/10;
(v) Sporting Clays CLE; Ethics with Judges      4/29/10;
(w) SC Circuit Judges Conference      5/05/10;
(x) Annual Judicial Conference     8/18/10;
(y) Sporting Clays CLE: Ethics with Judges      10/28/10;
(z) SC Bar Convention 1/21/11;
(aa) SC Circuit Court Judges Conference 5/04/11.
   Judge Buckner reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) In 1981 or 1982 I spoke at a SC Bar CLE Seminar on
“Extraordinary Writs” at the USC School of Law.
(b) On May 18, 1984, I was moderator at a seminar on
“Condemnation Law and Practice” at the USC School of Law.
(c) On October 21, 1994, I taught a CLE seminar entitled “Calling as
A Witness an Expert Who Was Engaged but Not Called by Opposing
Party” at the USC School of Law.
(d) On or about October 1, 2001, I served on a panel at the Annual
Solicitor’s Conference and gave a speech entitled “Recent Court
Decisions.”
(e) In September 2004, I spoke at a conference held at Wofford
College, entitled “Wofford and the Law.” Along with other circuit
court judges, I spoke about new developments in the law, both in

  [HJ]                          96
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

General Sessions and Common Pleas Court, in a speech              entitled
“Observations from the Bench.”
(f) In September 2007, I spoke at a conference held at Wofford
College, entitled “The Constitution:       The     Third    Branch      of
Government, an Insider’s View.” My speech was entitled           “Judicial
Independence.”
(g) In July of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, I spoke at the New
Circuit Judges Orientation School regarding “Common Problems in
Applying Rules of Court and Rules of Evidence.”
   Judge Buckner reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge Buckner did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge Buckner did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buckner
has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge Buckner was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge Buckner reported that his last available rating by a legal rating
organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV.
   Judge Buckner reported the following military service:
      “I was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant at graduation through
the Wofford College ROTC program in May of 1971. I was on active
duty from October 13, 1971, to January 13, 1972. The branch of
service at this time was the Quarter Master Corps. My serial number is
XXX-XX-XXXX. After discharge from active duty, I continued in the
U.S. Army Reserves from 1972 until approximately 1979 and was
transferred to the Judge Advocate General Corps, and I received my
discharge from the Reserves in about 1979, at which time I had
obtained the rank of Captain. My current status is inactive. I have an
Honorable Discharge.”
   Judge Buckner reported that he has held the following public office:
      “I served as Staff Attorney for the State of SC in the SC Attorney
General’s Office from 1975-77. I served as an Assistant Attorney
General for the State of SC from 1977-79. In 1997, I became a part-
time Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Judicial Circuit. All of these
offices are appointed.”

  [HJ]                            97
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(6) Physical Health:
   Judge Buckner appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge Buckner appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge Buckner was admitted to the SC Bar in 1975.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) 1975-79: SC Attorney General’s Office as a Staff Attorney and
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, SC.
   From 1975 to 1977 I was a staff attorney in the Attorney General’s
Office during my first two years of employment. My duties included
prosecuting criminal cases in the Magistrate and Circuit Courts of SC.
I also handled criminal appeals to the SC Supreme Court on behalf of
the State of SC during my initial two years with the SC Attorney
General’s Office.
   From 1977 to 1979, I moved to the Civil Division of the SC
Attorney General’s Office and I handled civil litigation for the State of
SC, including representation of the SC Wildlife Department, the SC
Highway Department, the Medical University of SC, The Citadel, and
the SC Forestry Commission.
(b) 1979-81: Partner in the Law Firm of Wise and Cole, P.A., in
Charleston, SC.
   From 1979-81, I did insurance defense work as a partner with the
firm of Wise and Cole in Charleston, SC. During this time, my
practice consisted of almost entirely civil defense work.
(c) 1981-86: Partner in the Law Firm of Smoak, Moody, Buckner
and Siegel in Walterboro, SC.
   From 1981 to 1986, as a partner with the law firm of Smoak, Moody,
Buckner and Seigel in Walterboro, SC, I handled primarily plaintiffs’
personal injury cases and Workers’ Compensation cases. This was a
general law practice so I handled both plaintiff and defense cases in
both magistrates and circuit court.
(d) 1986-2000: Private Practice, Law Office of Perry M. Buckner, in
Walterboro, SC.
   From 1986-2000, I started my own private law practice, I handled
plaintiffs’ personal injury cases, Social Security cases, and Probate
Court/Estate work. I also handled both plaintiff and defendant litigation
in civil court, and I handled criminal defense work in the Court of

  [HJ]                            98
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

General Sessions of SC. In 1986 I was selected to serve on the Board
of the Colleton County Public Defender Corporation, where I
continued until being hired as an Assistant Solicitor for the Fourteenth
Judicial Circuit in 1997. In 1987 I was court appointed to represent a
Capital Defendant in a murder case in Colleton County, which was
tried to completion in both the guilt and sentencing phases.
   In 1997, I became a part-time Assistant Solicitor for the Fourteenth
Judicial Circuit, prosecuting cases for the Solicitor’s Office in the
Court of General Sessions for Colleton County.
   From 2000 to the present, I have served as a resident Circuit Court
Judge for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit.”
   Judge Buckner reported that he has held the following judicial
office:
      “On February 9, 2000, I was elected as a resident Circuit Court
Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number 1, and I was
sworn in on June 30, 2000. I began work on July 1, 2000, as a Circuit
Court Judge.”
   Judge Buckner provided the following list of his most significant
orders or opinions:
(a) Vicki F. Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc. and Ken Darwin,
03-CP-25-476. The Court of Appeals affirmed my order denying
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, which is attached hereto.
The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case is cited as Vicki F.
Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc. and Ken Darwin, 363 S.C. 628,
611 S.E.2d 305 (Ct. App. 2005).
(b) Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Regional Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158,
612 S.E.2d 695 (2005).This was a medical malpractice case involving
death in which I directed a verdict regarding conflicting instructions
and excluded evidence regarding conflicting discharge instructions
after the withdrawal of the defense of comparative negligence. The SC
Supreme Court recently upheld this decision. My order denying a new
trial in this case is attached. The decision of the Supreme Court is
reported as Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Regional Hosp., Inc., 364
S.C. 158, 612 S.E.2d 695 (2005).
(c) State v. Victor Pichardo and Lorenzo Victoria Reyes, 367 S.C. 84,
   623 S.E. 2d 840 (Ct App., 2005) This is a criminal case in which I
suppressed evidence seized by law enforcement which was affirmed by
the SC Court of Appeals.
(d) State v. M.S. Hernandez, 386 S.C. 655, 290 S.E. 2d 582 (Ct. App,
2010) This is an appeal from a criminal case in which I was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals in refusing to charge the lesser included

  [HJ]                           99
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

offense of voluntary manslaughter. I was affirmed by the South
Carolina Court of Appeals.
(e) Partain v. Upstate Automotive, 386 S.C. 488, 689 S.E. 2d 602
(2010). This is a SC Supreme Court decision in which I was affirmed
for refusing to compel arbitration.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge Buckner’s temperament has
been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Lowcountry Citizens Committee reported that Judge Bucker is
“Well qualified” in each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional
qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic         ability,
character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and
   judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, “The
candidate is highly regarded in the community and well respected as a
judge not only in the Fourteenth Circuit, but statewide as well.”
   Judge Buckner is married to Janet Hobbs Buckner. He has two
children.
   Judge Buckner reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) Current Member of the SC Bar Association;
(b) Current Member of the Colleton County Bar Association;
(c) Current Member of the American Bar Association;
(d) Former Member of the SC Defense Trial Attorneys Association;
(e) Former Member of the SC Association for Justice;
(f) Former Member of the SC Bar Judicial Qualification Committee;
(g) Former Member of the SC Bar Nominating Committee;
(h) Former Member of the SC Bar House of Delegates.
   Judge Buckner provided that he was a member of the following
civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Liturgist, Usher, Greeter at Bethel United Methodist Church,
Walterboro, SC;
(b) Member of the Colleton County Historical and Preservation
Society;
(c) Member of Colleton County Arts Council;
(d) Member of Walterboro Elks Club;
(e) Past member of the Dogwood Hills Country Club.
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission noted that Judge Buckner possesses a great judicial
temperament and an outstanding work ethic that serves him well in
performing the duties of a Circuit Court judge.

  [HJ]                             100
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(12) Conclusion:
  The Commission found Judge Buckner qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Circuit Court.

                ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT

                The Honorable John Davis McLeod
                             Seat 2

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Judge McLeod meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as an
Administrative Law Court judge.
   Judge McLeod was born in 1942. He is 69 years old and a resident
of Winnsboro, SC. Judge McLeod provided in his application that he
has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and
has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1967.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Judge McLeod.
   Judge McLeod demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Judge McLeod reported that he not made any campaign
expenditures.
   Judge McLeod testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Judge McLeod testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-
hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening
Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Judge McLeod to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.

  [HJ]                           101
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge McLeod described his past continuing legal or judicial
education during the past five years as follows:
      “None. I am no longer required to attend CLE because of age.”
   Judge McLeod reported that he has taught the following law related
course:
      “I have lectured at the SC Bar Program ‘Bridge the Gap’ for new
lawyers.”
   Judge McLeod reported that he has not published any books or
articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Judge McLeod did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Judge McLeod did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McLeod
has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Judge McLeod was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Judge McLeod reported that his last available rating by a legal rating
organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV.
   Judge McLeod reported the following military service:
Fall of 1961 through February 27, 1964: U.S. Naval Reserve; Seaman
Apprentice; Serial# XXX XX XX; Honorable Discharge in 1964.
(6) Physical Health:
   Judge McLeod appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Judge McLeod appears to be mentally capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Judge McLeod was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) 1967-69, Staff Att’y., Legal Dept., S.C. Public Service Authority,
real estate and administrative law;
(b) 1969-2005, general practice of law in sole practice in Winnsboro,
SC—I phased out of criminal law and almost all domestic law for the past
10 years or so of my practice;
(c) 2005 to present, service as Administrative Law Judge.

  [HJ]                            102
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Judge McLeod reported that he has held the following judicial
office:
     “First elected to Seat #2, Administrative Law Court on February 2,
2005 and serving continuously since. The Administrative Law Court
(ALC), generally speaking, has jurisdiction of appeals and contested
cases arising from state agencies. The significant limitation on the
jurisdiction of the ALC is that while it can decide if a constitutional
right has been abrogated, it cannot rule on the constitutionality of a
statute.”
   Judge McLeod provided the following list of his most significant
orders or opinions:
(a) Too Tacky Partnership v. SCDHEC and Mayo Read, Jr. 05-ALJ-07-
0165-CC, affirmed by 386 S.C.32, 686 S.E.2d 194 (SC App. 2009).
(b) Spectre, LLC v. SCDHEC, et al, 06-ALJ-07-0711-CC, reversed by
386 S.C. 357, 688 S.E.2d 844(SC 2010).
(c) Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corporation v. SCDMV, 07-ALJ-21-
0096-CC, affirmed by 380 S.C. 600, 670 S.E.2d 674 (SC App. 2008).
(d) Greeneagle, Inc. v. SCDHEC, 08-ALJ-07-0339-CC(Landfill case).
(e) Gary Slezak v. SCDPPPS, 09-ALJ-15-0019-AP(Parole denial case).
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Judge McLeod’s temperament has
been and will continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Piedmont Citizen’s Committee on Judicial Qualification found
Judge McLeod to be “Well qualified” for four evaluative criteria:
ethical fitness, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The
Committee found Judge McLeod “Qualified” for the remaining five
evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, physical health, mental
stability, professional and academic ability, and character. The
Committee stated in summary, “The Committee finds Judge McLeod to
be very qualified for re-appointment.”
   Judge McLeod is married to Virginia Martin Ingram McLeod. He
has two children.
   Judge McLeod reported that he is not a member of any bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar Association;
(b) SC Association of Regulatory Attorneys (SCARLA).
   Judge McLeod provided that he is not a member of any civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
   Judge McLeod further reported:
     “Eagle Scout, former Elder, Sion Presbyterian Church, formerly

  [HJ]                            103
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

served on SC Bar Committee on Practice and Procedure, and six years
experience on the Administrative Law Court.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
  The Commission commented that Judge McLeod has served very
ably as a jurist on the Administrative Law Court for the past six years.
(12) Conclusion:
  The Commission found Judge McLeod qualified and nominated him
for re-election to the Administrative Law Court.

              QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED

                       Joey Randell Floyd
            Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Mr. Floyd meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Mr. Floyd was born in 1975. He is 36 years old and a resident of
Columbia, SC. Mr. Floyd provided in his application that he has been
a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been
a licensed attorney in SC since 2001.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Mr. Floyd.
   Mr. Floyd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial
Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Mr. Floyd testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Mr. Floyd testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Mr. Floyd to be intelligent and

  [HJ]                           104
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Mr. Floyd described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Annual Free CLE Ethics Seminar 11/3/06;
(b) 2006 Ultimate Trial Notebook        11/17/06;
(c) National Institute for Trial Advocacy – SE Regional 5/19/07–
5/25/07;
(d) NC/SC Construction Law Section 9/14/07;
(e) 2008 Master In Equity Bench/Bar 10/10/08;
(f) Keeping the “Lawyer” in Lawyer 10/28/08;
(g) Annual Free CLE Ethics Seminar 11/7/08;
(h) 2009 Master In Equity Bench/Bar 10/9/09;
(i) 2010 Masters in Equity Bench/Bar (and make-up CLE) 10/8/10;
(j) Consumer Law Section (SC Bar Convention) 1/20/11;
(k) Administrative Regulatory Law Committee, Government
   Law Section (SC Bar Convention)         1/21/11;
(l) Corporate Banking & Securities Law Section (SC Bar
Convention) 1/21/11;
(m) Law Firm Management Seminar (SC Bar Convention) 1/22/11.
   Mr. Floyd reported that he has taught the following law-related
course:
     “I was a speaker for the 2008 Master In Equity Bench/Bar CLE
(October 2008) on the topic of Supplemental Proceedings and
collecting on Judgments.”
   Mr. Floyd reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Floyd did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Floyd did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Floyd has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Mr. Floyd was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Mr. Floyd reported that his rating by a legal rating organization,
Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
(6) Physical Health:
   Mr. Floyd appears to be physically capable of performing the duties

  [HJ]                          105
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
    Mr. Floyd appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of
the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
    Mr. Floyd was admitted to the SC Bar in 2001.
    He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
      “I have been associated with one law firm since being admitted to
practice law (2001 – 2011). The firm has changed names once during
my employment/association. The firm name was Bruner Powell
Robbins Wall & Mullins, LLC (2001 – 2010) and the firm name was
changed in 2010 to Bruner Powell Wall & Mullins, LLC, after a
member of the firm departed from the firm.
      My law practice has been, almost exclusively, a civil law practice
in which I have handled construction litigation (representing Plaintiffs
and Defendants), professional malpractice matters (defense), collection
(representing creditors and debtors), business litigation and general
litigation matters (representing Plaintiffs and Defendants). My practice
has, generally speaking, maintained a variety of litigation matters over
the years. However, over the past two to three years, the malpractice
defense portion of my practice has increased.”
    Mr. Floyd further reported:
      “My practice has been a heavy litigation practice, dating back to
2001. I have been involved in all sorts of litigation ranging from the
simplest of issues to some of the most complicated/complex litigation.
I have handled a number of legal malpractice matters which can be
some of the most complex litigation because of the “case within the
case” scenario presented in every legal malpractice action. Each legal
malpractice action comes to us with its own unique issues. I have been
involved in legal malpractice actions involving issues related to
personal injury, worker’s compensation, probate and real estate
matters. I have exclusively represented the Defendant(s) in the legal
malpractice actions, which has been exceptionally rewarding due to the
fact that my client in legal malpractice actions are attorneys. I have
also had the opportunity to represent appraisers in appraisal
malpractice actions, which has been interesting over the past several
years as the global economy has stalled.
      General litigation and business litigation matters are also
rewarding to me because my clients and I have come to a mutual
respect for one another. More specifically, I respect my client’s

  [HJ]                           106
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

business decisions on certain matters and my clients respect my legal
advice, even though they do not always follow all parts of my advice.
      Another area of my practice would be collection matters, which
has been rewarding to me in that most of my creditor clients have well-
intentioned customers that seem to find themselves on hard times. I
have enjoyed putting deals/repayment plans together that satisfy my
client and my client’s customer that could lead to the rebuilding of a
relationship between creditor and debtor.
      Generally speaking, the more complex litigation tends to have
more complex procedural histories, including second and third
amended complaints, along with fourth party complaints, cross claims
and counterclaims.
   “While I have limited experience in criminal matters, I am confident
that I will be able to learn the criminal system quickly based on the fact
that I have learned numerous legal principles over the course of nearly
ten years in my law practice. I will also take advantage of as many
continuing legal education courses as possible to broaden my spectrum
of knowledge in criminal matters. I would use all tools available to me
as a circuit court judge to continuously educate myself on civil and
criminal matters.”
   Mr. Floyd reported the frequency of his court appearances during the
last five years as follows:
(a) federal:
   I have handled and/or been involved in a number of federal court
cases over the past five years. I would estimate that I have been
involved in 5 – 10 federal court matters during the past five years. The
federal court matters that I have been involved with over the past five
years have all been disposed of by way of a summary judgment motion
(where I/my firm represented the party moving for summary
judgment), referred to arbitration or settled. As a result of the
electronic case filing and electronic case management, a number of
federal court cases that I have been involved in have been disposed of
and/or resolved through electronic filings. Over the course of the past
five years, I can only recall one case where a hearing was deemed
necessary by the Court (Motion for Summary Judgment). I would
estimate that the Federal Court portion of my practice would be
approximately 5% of my practice.
(b) state:
   I have handled numerous state court cases over the past five years
and routinely appear in Circuit Court for motion hearings and roster
meetings. I also frequently appear in the Equity Courts of South

  [HJ]                            107
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Carolina as a part of my collection practice.
    Mr. Floyd reported the percentage of his practice involving civil,
criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil:         99%;
(b) Criminal: 1%;
(c) Domestic: 0%.
      Mr. Floyd reported the percentage of his practice in trial court
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Jury:          75%;
(b) Non-jury: 25%.
    Mr. Floyd provided that he most often served as co-counsel, and
over the past three years, as sole counsel.
    The following is Mr. Floyd’s account of his five most significant
litigated matters:
(a) Mowrer v. Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission,
et.al., C/A No.: 2000-CP-10-2420. This case is a reported case, 361
S.C. 476, 605 S.E.2d 563. I, along with Hank Wall in my firm,
represented the Defendants in this particular action against a Plaintiff’s
claim of, among other causes of action, inverse condemnation. This
case provided the Court of Appeals with an opportunity to expand and
clarify various issues relating to inverse condemnation. When this case
was tried the first time (October 2002), the case law on inverse
condemnation was far from clear. This is also the only trial that I have
been involved in where the same case was tried twice as a result of the
appeal.
(b) Fortson v. Randy Skinner, Greenville County C/A No.: 08-CP-
23-1124 and U.S. District Court C/A No.: 6:08-cv-01107. I
represented Randy Skinner, a South Carolina attorney and United
States Bankruptcy Trustee, in an action filed by Major Fortson.
Fortson claimed that Randy Skinner, while carrying out his duties as
the United States Bankruptcy Trustee, failed to properly carry out his
duties. The State Court action and the Federal Court action were
ultimately dismissed on the basis of the Barton Doctrine. The Barton
Doctrine basically states that before filing an action against a United
States Trustee, a litigant must obtain permission from a United States
District Court Judge. The Barton Doctrine provides a layer of
insulation against frivolous filings by litigants who can be disgruntled
debtors or creditors in the United States Bankruptcy Courts.
(c) Blanchard Machinery Company v. L & L Construction, LLC,
et.al., C/A No.: 05-CP-21-1531. This case began as a simple collection
matter that had the potential to be an important case concerning the

  [HJ]                            108
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

“diligent creditor rule.” To some extent, the existing case law in South
Carolina is not clear on how “lazy” creditors should be treated when an
aggressive creditor finds certain personal property of a common debtor.
While there is some authority that tends to suggest that the Courts
should only reward the efforts of the diligent creditor, the case law is
not absolute and this particular case had the potential to be a leading
case as a result of my efforts in supplemental proceedings when I
located over $50,000.00 in a bank account that the debtors claimed was
for the benefit of all creditors. Unfortunately, one of the debtors filed
for bankruptcy and the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Court of
Appeals on the basis that the appeal became moot.
(d) Ellison v. Heart Rate, Inc., et.al., C/A No.: 3:06-cv-1053. This
case was a products liability action against, among others, an exercise
machine manufacturer. I represented the machine manufacturer in this
particular federal action. The Plaintiff failed to procure an expert to
opine on the alleged defect(s) and the federal court dismissed the
Plaintiff’s action, relying in part on the Plaintiff’s failure to procure an
expert. This case illustrates the importance of adhering to the Court’s
Orders.
(e) Carews v. RBC Centura Bank, et.al. C/A No.: 2010-CP-32-442.
I represented the appraiser in this civil action. The Plaintiffs in this
civil action were borrowers who were building a million dollar home
and, during construction, their builder encountered financial problems
so severe that it/he was unable to finish the home. The borrowers
alleged that the appraiser was negligent in making her inspections
during the construction of the home. The trial court recently granted
the appraiser summary judgment on the basis that the appraiser did not
owe any duties to the borrowers. This ruling may be appealed and will
provide the appellate court with an opportunity to expand on the duties
of appraisers in South Carolina.
   The following is Mr. Floyd’s account of the civil appeals he has
personally handled:
(a) Mowrer v. Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission,
et.al., C/A No.: 2000-CP-10-2420. The case is reported at 361 S.C.
476, 605 S.E.2d 563.
(b) Blanchard Machinery Company v. L & L Construction, LLC,
et.al., C/A No.: 05-CP-21-1531. This appeal was not ruled upon by the
Court of Appeals and was dismissed as moot as a result of the
Defendant’s/Debtor’s bankruptcy filing.
(c) I have assisted other attorneys in my firm on various civil
appellate matters.

  [HJ]                             109
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Mr. Floyd reported he has not personally handled any criminal
appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
   The Commission believes that Mr. Floyd’s temperament would be
excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
   The Midlands Citizen’s Committee on Judicial Qualification found
Mr. Floyd to be “Well qualified” in seven of the nine evaluative
criteria: constitutional qualifications, physical health, mental stability,
ethical fitness, character, reputation, and judicial temperament. The
committee found him “Qualified” in the remaining two criteria of
professional and academic ability and experience. The Committee
stated in summary, “The Committee was very impressed with Mr.
Floyd, and we enjoyed his interview. We found him to be sincere,
energetic and committed to public service. We feel certain that he is
very qualified to serve our state on the Circuit Court, and we know that
he would serve in an outstanding manner.”
   Mr. Floyd is married to Ellie Cavenaugh Floyd. He has two
children.
   Mr. Floyd reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) American Bar Association;
(b) Richland County Bar Association.
   Mr. Floyd provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Washington Street United Methodist Church Childcare
Development Center, Former Board Member and Former Chairman of
the Board;
(b) Washington Street United Methodist Church, Missions
Committee, Member of the Committee.
   Mr. Floyd further reported:
      “Growing up in Turbeville, SC, provided me with a different
perspective on life.       I grew up in, and around, a farming
community/lifestyle. Today, I have the privilege of serving as an
attorney and interacting with professionals. To a certain extent, I have
been able to draw on the benefits of both lifestyles and I believe I have
the ability to connect with people from all walks of life. Additionally,
after appearing in Court on numerous occasions over the course of my
law practice, I understand the traits and characteristics that make a
good Circuit Court Judge.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:

  [HJ]                             110
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

  The Commission commented that Mr. Floyd has an outstanding
reputation as a civil law practitioner. They noted he is very intelligent
and well spoken, which would be an asset on the Circuit Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:
  The Commission found Mr. Floyd qualified but not nominated to
serve as a Circuit Court judge.

                          Robert L. Reibold
                     Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission’s Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
   Based on the Commission’s investigation, Mr. Reibold meets the
qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court
judge.
   Mr. Reibold was born in 1970. He is 41 years old and a resident of
Columbia, SC. Mr. Reibold provided in his application that he has
been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has
been a licensed attorney in SC since 1995.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
   The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of
unethical conduct by Mr. Reibold.
   Mr. Reibold demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,
particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of
gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
   Mr. Reibold reported that he has made the following campaign
expenditures: $147.88 on paper, printing, and envelopes, $87.15 on
postage, and $10.00 on fingerprinting.
   Mr. Reibold testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a
legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly
prior to screening.
   Mr. Reibold testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour
rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.




  [HJ]                            111
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
   The Commission found Mr. Reibold to be intelligent and
knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and
procedure questions met expectations.
   Mr. Reibold described his past continuing legal or judicial education
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Robert Masante’s: Killer Expert Depositions        4/1/2005;
(b) Advanced Personal Injury Practice       4/14/2005;
(c) Writing Credit – SC Lawyer Magazine 7/22/2005;
(d) ABC’s of Effective Ethical Practice 10/14/2005;
(e) E-Discovery and Evidence 5/5/2006;
(f) Legal Aspects of Condominium Regimes 8/25/2006;
(g) 6th Annual Civil Law Update 1/25/2008;
(h) A Day in Discovery – Part 1 1/26/2008;
(i) A Day in Discovery – Part 2 1/26/2008;
(j) New Rules of Professional Conduct 2/10/2008;
(k) Rules, Rules, Rules 12/12/2008;
(l) Civil Court Judicial Forum 9/30/2009;
(m) Annual Free Ethics Seminar 11/6/2009;
(n) Employment & Labor Law 1/22/2010;
(o) Torts & Insurance Practice – Part 1     1/22/2010;
(p) Torts & Insurance Practice – Part 2     1/23/2010;
(q) Alternate Dispute Resolution        1/2011.
   Mr. Reibold reported that he has taught the following law-related
courses:
(a) I made a presentation as a speaker at the Automobile Torts CLE in
the Fall of 2000; and
(b) I made a presentation as a speaker at the Masters in Equity CLE in
October of 2010.
   Mr. Reibold reported that he has not published any books or articles.
   Mr. Reibold reported that he has published the following:
(a) SC Equity: A Practitioner’s Guide (SC Bar CLE 2010) (Co-
Author);
(b) Hidden Danger of Using Private Detectives (SC Lawyer, July
2005) (Author);
(c) Cutting the Fishing Trip Short: Protecting an Adjuster’s Claim
File (SC Lawyer, July/August 2000) (Author);
(d) The Big Catch: An Adjuster’s Claim File (SC Lawyer,
July/August 2005) (Author).



  [HJ]                           112
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   (4) Character:
   The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Reibold did not reveal
evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made
against him. The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Reibold did not
indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Reibold has
handled his financial affairs responsibly.
   The Commission also noted that Mr. Reibold was punctual and
attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s
investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and
industry.
(5) Reputation:
   Mr. Reibold reported that the rating by a legal organization,
Martindale-Hubbell, was BV when he initially applied. He further
stated, “I have not been reevaluated in some time.”
(6) Physical Health:
   Mr. Reibold appears to be physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
   Mr. Reibold appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties
of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
   Mr. Reibold was admitted to the SC Bar in 1995.
   He gave the following account of his legal experience since
graduation from law school:
(a) 1996, law clerk to the Honorable J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Judge of
   the Circuit Court;
(b) 1996-2000, associate at Swagart & Walker, P.A.;
(c) 2000-02, Swagart, Walker & Reibold, P.A.;
(d) 2002-05, Swagart, Walker, Martin & Reibold, P.A.;
(e) 2005-08, Walker, Martin & Reibold, LLC;
(f) 2008 to the present, Walker & Reibold, LLC.
   Mr. Reibold further reported:
     “My experience in criminal matters has been limited. I had some
exposure to General Sessions Court during my judicial clerkship.
However, since that time, I have been involved exclusively in civil
matters.     I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in
Magistrate’s Court, Circuit Court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals,
and the South Carolina Supreme Court. I have also represented both
plaintiffs and defendants in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. At least 95% of my practice has been
devoted to litigation. The types of matters I have handled range from

  [HJ]                           113
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

personal injury actions, to include wrongful death and survival claims,
employment discrimination litigation, products liability actions, breach
of contract, fraud, and unfair trade practice claims.
    To some extent, my background has prepared me to handle criminal
actions. I became familiar with the operations of the Court of General
Sessions during my judicial clerkship. I have also regularly used the
South Carolina Rules of Evidence as a civil litigator, and these rules
apply equally in criminal actions. I would compensate for my lack of
experience in criminal matters through education. I would attend
continuing legal education seminars in criminal law and procedure.
Additionally, I would engage in private study of criminal issues in
order to ensure competency.”
    Mr. Reibold reported the frequency of his court appearances during
the past five years as follows:
      “In the past 5 years, I have handled approximately 25 cases in
federal court. In the same time period, I have handled between 150 and
200 cases in South Carolina state courts.”
    Mr. Reibold reported the percentage of his practice involving civil,
criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
    Civil:         100%.
    Mr. Reibold reported the percentage of his practice in trial court
during the past five years as follows:
(a) Jury:          97%;
(b) Non-jury: 3%.
    Mr. Reibold provided, “I served as sole/chief counsel in 50% of
these matters. For the remainder, I served as associate counsel.”
    The following is Mr. Reibold’s account of his five most significant
litigated matters:
(a) Roberts v. LaConey, 375 S.C. 97, 650 S.E.2d 474 (2007). I
sought permission to file an amicus brief in this case which was filed in
the South Carolina Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. The case
was decided in favor of the parties represented by my firm, and helped
define what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in the State of
South Carolina;
(b) Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 557 S.E.2d 626 (Ct.App. 2001).
Among other things, this case involved the question of when a
corporate shareholder may maintain a breach of fiduciary action
against corporate board members or directors. I assisted in the trial of
this case and argued the appeal, which helped to clarify an uncertain
area of law in South Carolina.


  [HJ]                            114
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(c) Fournil v. Turbeville Insurance Agency. In this matter, I
represented a small start up company. The founder of the company had
split off from a larger insurance agency, which became involved in
litigation with my client. If the larger company’s claims had been
successful, the suit would crushed the new business. My clients were
facing an adversary with much greater resources. To me this case is
significant because its successful resolution was literally a question of
the survival of my client.
(d) Butler v. Ford Motor Company, et al., 724 F.Supp.2d 575 (D.S.C.
2010). In this case, I represented a small tire company from Georgia
who had been improperly sued in South Carolina.              The case is
significant to me because I was able to have the case relocated to a
proper forum, and prevent what appeared to be forum shopping.
(e) Long v. Wray Automotive. In this federal case, I represented a car
dealership who had been sued for loss of filial consortium. I argued
that such a cause of action did not exist in South Carolina. The federal
district court predicted that South Carolina would not recognize such a
claim. This decision can be found at Long v. Wray Automotive, 2006
WL 3612875 (D.S.C.), and helped to clarify an ambiguous area of law.
    The following is Mr. Reibold’s account of the civil appeals he has
personally handled:
(a) Brown v. Stewart, et al, November 19, 2001 (reported at 348 S.C.
33,557 S.E.2d 676 (Ct.App. 2001) ( brief and argument);
(b) Hall v. Fedor, March 25, 2002 (reported at 349 S.C. 169, 561
S.E.2d 654 (Ct.App. 2002) (on brief).
    Mr. Reibold reported he has not personally handled any criminal
appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
    The Commission believes that Mr. Reibold’s temperament would be
excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
    The Midlands Citizen’s Committee on Judicial Qualification found
Mr. Reibold “Qualified” in the areas of professional and academic
ability, and experience. He was found “Well qualified” in the
evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and
mental stability, ethical fitness, character, reputation, and judicial
temperament. The Committed stated in summary, “The Committee
was impressed by Mr. Reibold. We found him to be a very intelligent,
sincere, and committed candidate. He is very qualified to serve as a
judge on the Circuit Court, and we are confident he would serve our
state in an excellent manner.”

  [HJ]                            115
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

   Mr. Reibold is married to Shealy Boland Reibold. He has one child.
   Mr. Reibold reported that he was a member of the following bar
associations and professional associations:
(a) SC Bar Association, Member, House of Delegates 2008 to the
present;
(b) Richland County Bar Association;
(c) American Bar Association; and
(d) SC Defense Trial Attorneys Association.
Mr. Reibold provided that he was a member of the following civic,
charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Member, Board of Directors, Keep the Midlands Beautiful;
Honored as Board Member of the Year for South Carolina Keep
America Beautiful Affiliates in 2005;
(b) Appointed Member, City of Columbia Tree and Appearance
Commission, 2007 to the present;
(c) Advisory Board Member, Salvation Army Command of the
Midlands;
(d) Columbia Kiwanis Club.
   Mr. Reibold further reported:
      “I have been involved in community affairs for some time. Over
the past 15 years, I have worked as a volunteer at public events, raised
money for the American Cancer Society, and served as a board
member for local non-profit organizations. I am also a member of the
2002 Leadership Columbia class. I was appointed by Columbia City
Council to the Columbia Tree and Appearance Commission, where I
continue to serve. I have recently been appointed as an advisory board
member for the Salvation Army of the Midlands. These activities
demonstrate my commitment to public service.
   I have also been active in promoting the legal profession. I have
been twice elected to the House of Delegates for the South Carolina
Bar Association. I have authored a number of articles and co-authored
a legal text published by the South Carolina Bar Association.
   Service as a Circuit Court Judge is a natural outgrowth of this
commitment service and the legal profession.”
(11) Commission Members’ Comments:
   The Commission commented on Mr. Reibold’s dedicated service in
the community and to the legal profession. They noted his good
presentation at the public hearing and his background as a civil
practitioner.



  [HJ]                           116
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

(12) Conclusion:
  The Commission found Mr. Reibold qualified, but not nominated to
serve as a Circuit Court judge.

                             CONCLUSION

  The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found the following
candidates QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED:

Supreme Court, Seat 4                 The Honorable Kaye G. Hearn

Court of Appeals, Seat 8              The Honorable Thomas E. Huff

Circuit Court
Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2        The Hon. George C. James, Jr.
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2       The Hon. John Michael Baxley
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2        The Hon. Lee Casey Manning
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3        Robert Eldon Hood
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3        John P. Meadors
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3        Clifford Scott
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2      The Hon. Roger Lynn Couch
Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2       The Hon. Eugene Cannon
  Griffith, Jr.
Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2        The Hon. Kristi Lea Harrington
Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2        The Hon. Alexander Stephens
  Macaulay
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1     The Hon. William Paul Keesley
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2     The Hon. R. Knox McMahon
Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1      The Hon. Michael G. Nettles
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1   The Hon. Perry M. Buckner III

Administrative Law Court
Seat 2                                  The Hon. John Davis McLeod

  The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found the following
candidates QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED:

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3        Joey R. Floyd
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3        Robert L. Reibold



  [HJ]                            117
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
Sen. Glenn F. McConnell        Rep. F.G. Delleney, Jr.
Rep. Alan D. Clemmons          Sen. John M. “Jake” Knotts, Jr.
Rep. David J. Mack III         Sen. Floyd Nicholson
Mr. John P. Freeman            Mr. John Davis Harrell
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester      Mr. H. Donald Sellers

  Received as information.

                    REGULATIONS RECEIVED
  The following was received and referred to the appropriate
committee for consideration:

Document No. 4197
Agency: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Section 30-4-45
Access to Restricted Information
Received by Speaker of the House of Representatives
January 11, 2012
Referred to Judiciary Committee
Legislative Review Expiration May 10, 2012

              REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
  Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:

  H. 4472 -- Reps. Delleney, Clemmons, Mack and Clyburn: A
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX NOON ON WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 1, 2012, AS THE TIME TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO
A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT, SEAT 4,
WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JULY 31, 2012; TO ELECT A
SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, SEAT 8, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2012;
TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2,
WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A
SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM
WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO
A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30,

  [HJ]                        118
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

2012; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3,
TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM THAT EXPIRES JUNE 30,
2015; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO
ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT FOR THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE
TERM WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A
SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM
WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO
A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE ON
JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE ON
JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE
30, 2012; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT
A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1,
WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 2012; TO ELECT A
SUCCESSOR TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SEAT 2,
WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 2012.
  Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4589 -- Reps. Owens, Atwater, Bingham, Brannon, Harrison,
Huggins, J. E. Smith, Taylor, Toole, Agnew, Alexander, Allen,
Allison, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield,
Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley,
G. A. Brown, H. B. Brown, R. L. Brown, Butler Garrick, Chumley,
Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole, Corbin, Crawford, Crosby,
Daning, Delleney, Dillard, Edge, Erickson, Forrester, Frye,
Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Govan, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell,

  [HJ]                         119
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Hart, Hayes, Hearn, Henderson, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges,
Horne, Hosey, Howard, Jefferson, Johnson, King, Knight, Limehouse,
Loftis, Long, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod,
Merrill, Mitchell, D. C. Moss, V. S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy,
Nanney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Parker, Parks,
Patrick, Pinson, Pitts, Pope, Putnam, Quinn, Rutherford, Ryan, Sabb,
Sandifer, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith,
J. R. Smith, Sottile, Southard, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon,
Thayer, Tribble, Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire,
Williams, Willis and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO
RECOGNIZE AND HONOR JOHN HEATH CALDWELL,
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, UPON THE OCCASION
OF HIS RETIREMENT, AFTER THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS OF
OUTSTANDING SERVICE, AND TO WISH HIM CONTINUED
SUCCESS AND HAPPINESS IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

  The Resolution was adopted.

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

   H. 4597 -- Reps. Bowers, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Allison,
Anderson, Anthony, Atwater, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield,
Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas, Bingham, Bowen, Brady, Branham,
Brannon, Brantley, G. A. Brown, H. B. Brown, R. L. Brown, Butler
Garrick, Chumley, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole, Corbin,
Crawford, Crosby, Daning, Delleney, Dillard, Edge, Erickson,
Forrester, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Govan, Hamilton,
Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Hayes, Hearn, Henderson,
Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges, Horne, Hosey, Howard, Huggins,
Jefferson, Johnson, King, Knight, Limehouse, Loftis, Long, Lowe,
Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod, Merrill, Mitchell,
D. C. Moss, V. S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy, Nanney, J. H. Neal,
J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parker, Parks, Patrick,
Pinson, Pitts, Pope, Putnam, Quinn, Rutherford, Ryan, Sabb, Sandifer,
Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith,
J. R. Smith, Sottile, Southard, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon,
Taylor, Thayer, Toole, Tribble, Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White,
Whitmire, Williams, Willis and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO
RECOGNIZE AND HONOR HAMPTON COUNTY FIRE CHIEF

  [HJ]                          120
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

GENE RUSHING, UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT,
AFTER THIRTY-FOUR YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO
THE CITIZENS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO WISH HIM
CONTINUED SUCCESS AND HAPPINESS IN THE YEARS
AHEAD.

  The Resolution was adopted.

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4598 -- Reps. Allison, Brannon, Chumley, Cole, Forrester, Parker
and Tallon: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND
CONGRATULATE THE JAMES F. BYRNES HIGH SCHOOL
FOOTBALL TEAM ON ITS IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE 2011
CLASS AAAA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.

  The Resolution was adopted.

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4599 -- Reps. Allison, Brannon, Chumley, Cole, Forrester, Parker
and Tallon: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE JAMES F. BYRNES HIGH
SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM, COACHES, AND SCHOOL
OFFICIALS, AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE SPEAKER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING RECOGNIZED
AND COMMENDED FOR WINNING THE 2011 CLASS AAAA
STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.

  Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

  That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of
Representatives be extended to the James F. Byrnes High School
football team, coaches, and school officials, at a date and time to be
determined by the Speaker, for the purpose of being recognized and




  [HJ]                          121
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

commended for winning the 2011 Class AAAA State Championship
title.

  The Resolution was adopted.

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4600 -- Rep. King: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE
AND CONGRATULATE THE SOUTH POINTE HIGH SCHOOL
FOOTBALL TEAM ON ITS IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE 2011
CLASS AAA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.

  The Resolution was adopted.

                      HOUSE RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4601 -- Rep. King: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND
THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE SOUTH POINTE HIGH
SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM, COACHES, AND SCHOOL
OFFICIALS, AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE SPEAKER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING RECOGNIZED
AND COMMENDED FOR WINNING THE 2011 CLASS AAA
STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.

  Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

   That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of
Representatives be extended to the South Pointe High School football
team, coaches, and school officials, at a date and time to be determined
by the Speaker, for the purpose of being recognized and commended
for winning the 2011 Class AAA State Championship title.

  The Resolution was adopted.




  [HJ]                           122
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

   H. 4590 -- Reps. Govan, Cobb-Hunter, Ott, Sellers, Hosey, Clyburn,
Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Allison, Anderson, Anthony, Atwater,
Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas,
Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brannon, Brantley,
G. A. Brown, H. B. Brown, R. L. Brown, Butler Garrick, Chumley,
Clemmons, Cole, Corbin, Crawford, Crosby, Daning, Delleney,
Dillard, Edge, Erickson, Forrester, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell,
Gilliard, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Hayes, Hearn,
Henderson, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges, Horne, Howard,
Huggins, Jefferson, Johnson, King, Knight, Limehouse, Loftis, Long,
Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod, Merrill, Mitchell,
D. C. Moss, V. S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy, Nanney, J. H. Neal,
J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Owens, Parker, Parks, Patrick, Pinson,
Pitts, Pope, Putnam, Quinn, Rutherford, Ryan, Sabb, Sandifer, Simrill,
Skelton, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, Sottile,
Southard, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon, Taylor, Thayer, Toole,
Tribble, Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams,
Willis and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS
THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH
CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY UPON THE DEATH OF DR.
SPENCER C. "DOC" DISHER, JR., OF ORANGEBURG AND TO
EXTEND THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND
MANY FRIENDS.

  The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the
Senate.

                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4591 -- Rep. Hayes: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO
REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NAME THE PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 917 IN
DILLON COUNTY FROM 1131 SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY
917 EAST TO 608 SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 917 EAST
"BRIGADIER GENERAL CARROLL G. ALLEN, SR. HIGHWAY"
AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS


  [HJ]                           123
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "BRIGADIER
GENERAL CARROLL G. ALLEN, SR. HIGHWAY".
  The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee
on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
  The following was introduced:

  H. 4602 -- Reps. Harrell, Lucas, Hardwick, Harrison, Howard,
Owens, Sandifer, White, Bingham and Ott: A CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION INVITING HER EXCELLENCY, NIKKI HALEY,
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO
ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT
7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2012, IN THE
CHAMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.

  Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate
concurring:

  That Her Excellency, Nikki Haley, Governor of the State of South
Carolina, is invited to address the General Assembly in joint session at
7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 18, 2012, in the chamber of the
South Carolina House of Representatives.

  The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the
Senate.

                       INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
   The following Bills and Joint Resolution were introduced, read the
first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

  H. 4586 -- Reps. Sottile, Bowen, Crosby, Hearn, Hixon and
Limehouse: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-29-95 SO AS TO
REQUIRE THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THIS STATE TO
PROVIDE CPR TRAINING TO ALL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
AS PART OF THE REQUIRED CURRICULUM, AND TO
PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MUST PASS THE CPR COURSE



  [HJ]                           124
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

AND BECOME CPR CERTIFIED BEFORE HE IS ELIGIBLE TO
RECEIVE A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA.
  Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works

  H. 4587 -- Reps. Butler Garrick, Rutherford, Dillard, Hart, Hodges,
Johnson, Munnerlyn, Ott, Sabb, Sellers, J. E. Smith, Tribble and King:
A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-3-35 SO AS TO
PROVIDE THAT THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF
EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT ANY FEDERAL FUNDS
AVAILABLE       TO     SOUTH        CAROLINA          WHICH      ARE
DISTRIBUTED TO THIS STATE ON A NONMATCHING BASIS
THROUGH HIS OFFICE OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012,
THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED
TO NOTIFY EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
THROUGH THEIR PRESIDING OFFICERS, THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE,
AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE OF THOSE FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES MADE AVAILABLE TO
THE STATE SINCE HIS LAST REPORT, AND TO PROVIDE
THAT ANY CITIZEN OF THIS STATE IS CONFERRED LEGAL
STANDING TO BRING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN A COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO COMPEL THE STATE
SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, AND IF THAT CITIZEN IS
DEEMED TO BE THE PREVAILING PARTY IN SUCH AN
ACTION IS ALSO ENTITLED TO COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.
  Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

  H. 4588 -- Reps. Pinson, Brantley, J. R. Smith, Simrill, Erickson,
Thayer, Huggins, Lucas, Hixon, Horne, V. S. Moss, Norman, Putnam,
G. M. Smith, Toole and Young: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF
LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 8-1-
15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO OWES
THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION UNPAID FINES OR OTHER
MONIES MAY NOT BE ELECTED, REELECTED, OR
APPOINTED TO A PUBLIC OFFICE WHOSE QUALIFICATIONS
ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
  Referred to Committee on Judiciary

  [HJ]                          125
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

  H. 4592 -- Reps. Sandifer, Erickson, Toole, Brady, Gambrell and
Bales: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 41-41-45 SO AS TO
PROVIDE A CIVIL PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
RELATED TO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, TO
PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM FINES
CREATED BY THIS PENALTY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND
WORKFORCE MAY NEVERTHELESS ENTER A CERTAIN
WRITTEN CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH A PERSON ALLEGED
TO BE GUILTY; TO AMEND SECTION 41-41-10, RELATING TO
OBTAINING OR INCREASING AN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
BENEFIT BY USE OF FALSE STATEMENTS OR FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS, OR BY THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
MATERIAL FACTS, SO AS TO REMOVE CIVIL PENALTIES
AND TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND A
REQUIREMENT OF RESTITUTION; AND TO AMEND SECTION
41-41-30, RELATING TO THE PREVENTION OR REDUCTION OF
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BENEFITS OR CONTRIBUTIONS BY
AN EMPLOYER, SO AS TO DELETE CIVIL PENALTIES AND TO
IMPOSE CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
  Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry

  H. 4593 -- Reps. Sandifer, Erickson, Brady, Gambrell and Toole: A
BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-1-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR
THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO
PROCEEDINGS          BEFORE         A     PROFESSIONAL          OR
OCCUPATIONAL          LICENSING        BOARD      UNDER       THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION,
AMONG OTHER THINGS; BY ADDING SECTION 40-1-215 SO
AS TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, PENALTIES,
AND APPEALS FOR A VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-1-
50, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT,
SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FOLLOW WHEN HIRING
CERTAIN       PERSONNEL         OF     A    PROFESSIONAL        OR
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THE
DEPARTMENT MAY PROMULGATE CERTAIN REGULATIONS;
TO AMEND SECTION 40-1-70, RELATING TO POWERS AND

  [HJ]                         126
                THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

DUTIES OF THESE BOARDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THESE
BOARDS MAY DELEGATE ANY DUTY, RIGHT, OR
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT; TO
AMEND SECTION 40-1-80, RELATING TO INVESTIGATIONS
BY THESE BOARDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PERSON FILING A
WRITTEN COMPLAINT WITH A BOARD OR THE DIRECTOR
MAY REQUEST HIS IDENTITY BE WITHHELD FROM THE
LICENSEE AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINT IS MADE FOR A
GOOD CAUSE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE APPROPRIATE
BODY MUST HOLD A HEARING ON THE MOTION AND
RENDER A DECISION ON THE MOTION WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS AFTER THE MOTION IS FILED; TO AMEND SECTION 40-
1-90, RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE A BOARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE
MEANS OF SERVING NOTICE TO A LICENSEE, AND TO
PROVIDE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE
BOARD IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARING DUE TO RECUSALS OF
BOARD MEMBERS, THE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE MAY
APPOINT AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL TO REACH A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE PENDING DISCIPLINARY MATTER;
TO AMEND SECTION 40-1-100, RELATING TO IMMUNITIES OF
THE DIRECTOR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, SO AS
TO PROVIDE THE DIRECTOR OR INDIVIDUAL BOARD
MEMBERS MAY NOT BE INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR
ACTIONS THEY TAKE IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL MALICE; AND TO
AMEND SECTION 40-1-115, RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF A
BOARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE A BOARD MAY FINE A LICENSE
APPLICANT        FOR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE AS A
CONDITION OF LICENSURE OR RENEWAL OF A LICENSE IF
THE APPLICANT HAS PRACTICED WITHOUT A LICENSE OR
WITH A LAPSED, SUSPENDED, OR REVOKED LICENSE.
  Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry

   H. 4594 -- Rep. Hodges: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO EXTEND
THE       DEADLINE         FOR       THE       MICROENTERPRISE
DEVELOPMENT STUDY COMMITTEE TO SUBMIT ITS
WRITTEN REPORT FROM JANUARY 20, 2012, TO SEPTEMBER
1, 2012.
   On motion of Rep. HODGES, with unanimous consent, the Joint
Resolution was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

  [HJ]                       127
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

  H. 4595 -- Reps. Bingham, Allison, Anthony and White: A BILL TO
AMEND ACT 73 OF 2011, RELATING TO THE 2011-2012
GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, SO AS TO REVISE
PARAGRAPH 1A.54, SECTION 1A, PART IB, DIRECTING THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO TRANSFER CERTAIN
FUNDS       TO      MEET       MAINTENANCE        OF      EFFORT
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT BY PROVIDING THAT THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT DIRECTED TO BE TRANSFERRED MUST BE "UP TO"
THAT AMOUNT AND NOT THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT
STIPULATED.
  On motion of Rep. ALLISON, with unanimous consent, the Bill was
ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

  H. 4596 -- Rep. Lowe: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-43-220,
AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976,
RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AND THE
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIOS FOR PURPOSES OF
IMPOSITION OF PROPERTY TAX, SO AS TO REDUCE THE
ASSESSMENT RATIO ON COMMERCIAL AND OTHER
APPLICABLE REAL PROPERTY FROM SIX PERCENT OF
VALUE TO FIVE PERCENT OF VALUE AND TO PHASE IN THIS
REDUCTION OVER TWO PROPERTY TAX YEARS.
  Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

                              ROLL CALL
   The roll call of the House of Representatives   was taken resulting as
follows:
Agnew                    Alexander                 Allen
Allison                  Anderson                  Anthony
Atwater                  Bales                     Bannister
Barfield                 Battle                    Bedingfield
Bingham                  Bowen                     Bowers
Brady                    Branham                   Brannon
Brantley                 G. A. Brown               R. L. Brown
Butler Garrick           Chumley                   Clemmons
Clyburn                  Cobb-Hunter               Cole
Corbin                   Crawford                  Crosby
Daning                   Delleney                  Dillard
Edge                     Erickson                  Forrester
Frye                     Funderburk                Gambrell

  [HJ]                           128
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Gilliard              Hardwick                Harrell
Harrison              Hayes                   Hearn
Herbkersman           Hiott                   Hixon
Hodges                Horne                   Hosey
Howard                Huggins                 Jefferson
King                  Knight                  Limehouse
Long                  Lowe                    Lucas
Mack                  McCoy                   McEachern
McLeod                Mitchell                D. C. Moss
V. S. Moss            Munnerlyn               Nanney
J. M. Neal            Neilson                 Norman
Owens                 Parker                  Parks
Patrick               Pitts                   Pope
Putnam                Quinn                   Ryan
Sabb                  Sandifer                Simrill
Skelton               G. M. Smith             G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith           J. R. Smith             Sottile
Southard              Spires                  Stavrinakis
Stringer              Tallon                  Taylor
Thayer                Toole                   Tribble
Weeks                 White                   Whitmire
Williams              Willis                  Young

                 STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE
  I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on
Thursday, January 12.
          James Merrill                Dwight Loftis
          Lewis E. Pinson              Chris Hart
          Jackson "Seth" Whipper       Joseph Neal
          Thad Viers                   Harry Ott
          Todd Rutherford              K. L. Johnson
          Jerry Govan                  Boyd Brown
          Ted Vick

                         Total Present--118

                         LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  The SPEAKER granted Rep. BALLENTINE a leave of absence for
the day due to business purposes.



  [HJ]                        129
                   THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  The SPEAKER granted Rep. MURPHY a leave of absence for the
day.

                          LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  The SPEAKER granted Rep. HAMILTON a leave of absence for the
day due to the birth of a child.

                   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  The SPEAKER granted Rep. H. B. BROWN a temporary leave of
absence.

                    LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  The SPEAKER granted Rep. GOVAN a temporary leave of absence.

                       DOCTOR OF THE DAY
  Announcement was made that Dr. Andrew Pate of Mt Pleasant was
the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.

               CO-SPONSORS ADDED AND REMOVED
   In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
   "5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed;
every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper,
its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member
presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be
presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. A member may
add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or
resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or
resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or
co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire
to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The
Clerk of the House shall print the member’s or co-sponsor’s written
notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name
does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee.”

                        CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:      H. 4420
Date:             ADD:
01/12/12          MCCOY



  [HJ]                             130
               THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4424
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       MCCOY

                    CO-SPONSORS ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4082
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       HAYES and R. L. BROWN

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4442
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       MCCOY

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4458
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       MCCOY

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4460
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       MCCOY

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4477
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       MCCOY

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4515
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       MCCOY

                     CO-SPONSOR ADDED
Bill Number:   H. 4587
Date:          ADD:
01/12/12       KING



  [HJ]                   131
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                     CO-SPONSOR REMOVED
Bill Number:     H. 4154
Date:            REMOVE:
01/12/12         D. C. MOSS

                        SENT TO THE SENATE
   The following Bill and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the third
time, and ordered sent to the Senate:

  H. 3236 -- Reps. Daning and G. R. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND
SECTION 59-65-10 AND SECTION 59-65-30, CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMPULSORY
EDUCATION FOR SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOLCHILDREN
AND     THE     EXCEPTION      TO     THE     REQUIREMENT,
RESPECTIVELY, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH CAROLINA
ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS AS AN AUTHORIZER
OF SCHOOLS THAT CHILDREN MAY ATTEND WITHIN THE
COMPULSORY EDUCATION REQUIREMENT.

  H. 3495 -- Rep. Alexander: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE
A STUDY COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY AND
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSOLIDATING SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES OF THIS
STATE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE
AND FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, AND TO REQUIRE THE
COMMITTEE TO REPORT ITS FINDINGS TO THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY BY JANUARY 31, 2012, AT WHICH TIME THE
STUDY COMMITTEE IS ABOLISHED.

           ORDERED ENROLLED FOR RATIFICATION
  The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, having
received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be
changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification:

  S. 258 -- Senators Sheheen, Campsen, Davis, Rose, Ryberg,
McConnell, Massey, Rankin, Setzler, Knotts and Alexander: A BILL
TO AMEND SECTION 1-3-240 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING
TO REMOVAL OF OFFICERS BY THE GOVERNOR, TO
PROVIDE THAT THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAY BE
REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR MALFEASANCE,
MISFEASANCE, INCOMPETENCY, ABSENTEEISM, CONFLICTS

  [HJ]                           132
                THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

OF INTEREST, MISCONDUCT, PERSISTENT NEGLECT OF
DUTY IN OFFICE, OR INCAPACITY; AND TO AMEND TITLE 1
BY ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF THE
STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE
INSPECTOR GENERAL IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR
WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO
AUTHORIZE THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO ADDRESS
FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, AND WRONGDOING WITHIN THE
SOUTH CAROLINA EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES,
AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE.

                   H. 4243--DEBATE ADJOURNED
  Rep. ATWATER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill
until Tuesday, January 24, which was adopted:

  H. 4243 -- Reps. Quinn, Bingham, Toole, Huggins, Atwater and
McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-27-365, AS AMENDED,
CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO
THE REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION FOR
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE
COMMISSION'S MEMBERSHIP FROM NINE TO ELEVEN
MEMBERS.

                  S. 391--RECOMMITTED
  The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for
consideration:

  S. 391 -- Senators Campsen, Scott and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND
SECTION 7-13-35, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
1976, RELATING TO THE NOTICE OF GENERAL, MUNICIPAL,
SPECIAL, AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE
TIME IN WHICH ABSENTEE BALLOTS MAY BE OPENED
FROM 2:00 P.M. TO 9:00 A.M., AND TO PROVIDE FOR A DATE
ON WHICH AN ELECTION WILL BE HELD IN THE EVENT
THAT IT IS POSTPONED; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-40,
RELATING TO THE TIME OF PARTY PRIMARY,
CERTIFICATION OF NAMES, VERIFICATION OF CANDIDATES'
QUALIFICATIONS, AND THE FILING FEE, SO AS TO CHANGE
THE DATE FROM APRIL NINTH TO APRIL FIFTH; TO AMEND
SECTION 7-13-190, RELATING TO SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO

  [HJ]                       133
                THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

FILL VACANCIES IN OFFICE, SO AS TO ADD A SUBSECTION
THAT PROVIDES FOR THE DATE OF AN ELECTION WHEN
THE GOVERNOR DECLARES A STATE OF EMERGENCY FOR A
JURISDICTION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-350,
RELATING TO THE CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES AND
VERIFICATION OF QUALIFICATIONS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE
CERTIFICATION DATE FOR CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT
AND VICE PRESIDENT FROM SEPTEMBER TENTH TO THE
FIRST TUESDAY FOLLOWING THE FIRST MONDAY OF
SEPTEMBER.

  Rep. CLEMMONS moved to recommit the Bill to the Committee on
Judiciary, which was agreed to.

               H. 3124--DEBATE ADJOURNED
  The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for
consideration:

   H. 3124 -- Reps. Pitts and G. R. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE
CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING
ARTICLES 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119,
120, 121, 122, 123, AND 124 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, SO AS TO
PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MAY ISSUE "DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MEDAL" SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES, "SECOND AMENDMENT" SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES, "DISTINGUISHED SERVICE CROSS"
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "DEPARTMENT OF NAVY"
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "PARENTS AND SPOUSES OF
ACTIVE DUTY OVERSEAS VETERANS" SPECIAL LICENSE
PLATES, "STATE FLAG" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL-RETIRED" LICENSE PLATES,
"I SUPPORT LIBRARIES" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "SOUTH
CAROLINA EDUCATOR" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "COON
HUNTERS" LICENSE PLATES, "BEACH MUSIC" SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES, "CITADEL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION 'BIG
RED'" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "LARGE MOUTH BASS"
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, "HIGH SCHOOL" SPECIAL
LICENSE       PLATES,        "SOUTH       CAROLINA     WILDLIFE
FEDERATION" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES AND "HISTORIC"
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-7330,
RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF "BOY SCOUTS OF

  [HJ]                       134
             THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

AMERICA" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO MAKE
TECHNICAL CHANGES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF "EAGLE SCOUTS OF AMERICA" SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-2150, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES TO CERTAIN CURRENT AND FORMER
ELECTED OFFICIALS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, SO AS TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES THAT
A CORONER MAY BE ISSUED FROM ONE TO TWO; TO
AMEND SECTION 56-3-1240, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
THE DISPLAY OF A LICENSE PLATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE
THAT A FRAME MAY BE PLACED ON A LICENSE PLATE
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-
3-10410, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF "VETERAN"
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE
PLACEMENT OF THE WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL ON CERTAIN
"VETERAN" LICENSE PLATES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-3310,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF "PURPLE
HEART" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF LICENSE PLATES THAT MAY BE ISSUED TO A
PERSON FROM ONE TO THREE AND TO PROVIDE A FEE FOR
THE THIRD LICENSE PLATE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-8000,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES THAT CONTAIN THE EMBLEM OF A TAX
EXEMPT ORGANIZATION, SO AS TO SPECIFY THEIR SIZE,
GENERAL DESIGN, PERIOD OF VALIDITY, TO REVISE THEIR
COSTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF FEES COLLECTED FROM
THEIR SALE, TO REVISE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF
PREPAID APPLICATIONS AND MINIMUM PAYMENT THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MUST RECEIVE
BEFORE A SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE MAY BE ISSUED, AND
TO PROVIDE THAT THE ORGANIZATION MUST GIVE ITS
LEGAL AUTHORITY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE
DEPARTMENT'S USE OF THE ORGANIZATION'S LOGO,
TRADE MARK, OR DESIGN; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-
8100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES CREATED BY THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY SO AS TO REVISE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF
PREPAID APPLICATIONS AND MINIMUM PAYMENT THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MUST RECEIVE
BEFORE A SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE MAY BE ISSUED AND TO

 [HJ]                   135
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

REVISE THEIR COSTS AND DISTRIBUTION                     OF    FEES
COLLECTED FROM THEIR SALES.

 Rep. DANING moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate
Amendments until Wednesday, January 18, which was agreed to.

                   LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  The SPEAKER granted Rep. G. M. SMITH a temporary leave of
absence.

    H. 3095--SENATE AMENDMENTS CONCURRED IN AND
                    BILL ENROLLED
  The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for
consideration:

  H. 3095 -- Reps. Clemmons, Erickson, Stavrinakis, McCoy, Bowen,
Sandifer, Whitmire, Hixon, J. R. Smith, Allison, Long, Toole, Weeks,
Atwater, Hardwick, Agnew, Govan and Bales: A BILL TO AMEND
THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING
SECTION 27-1-70 SO AS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
RELATED TO TRANSFER FEE COVENANTS, TO STATE
CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED TO TRANSFER FEE
COVENANTS, TO PROVIDE A TRANSFER FEE COVENANT
RECORDED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION,
OR ANY LIEN TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PURPORTS TO
SECURE THE PAYMENT OF A TRANSFER FEE, IS NOT
BINDING ON OR ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE AFFECTED
REAL PROPERTY OR ANY SUBSEQUENT OWNER,
PURCHASER, OR MORTGAGEE OF ANY INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY, AND TO PROVIDE THE SECTION DOES NOT
IMPLY THAT A TRANSFER FEE COVENANT RECORDED
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION IS VALID
OR ENFORCEABLE.

  Rep. CLEMMONS explained the Senate Amendments.




  [HJ]                         136
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

  The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
                           Yeas 104; Nays 0

 Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                   Allen                   Allison
Anderson                Anthony                 Atwater
Bales                   Bannister               Barfield
Battle                  Bedingfield             Bingham
Bowen                   Bowers                  Brady
Branham                 Brannon                 Brantley
G. A. Brown             R. L. Brown             Butler Garrick
Clemmons                Clyburn                 Cobb-Hunter
Cole                    Corbin                  Crawford
Crosby                  Daning                  Delleney
Dillard                 Edge                    Erickson
Forrester               Frye                    Funderburk
Gambrell                Gilliard                Hardwick
Harrell                 Harrison                Hart
Hayes                   Hearn                   Herbkersman
Hiott                   Hixon                   Hodges
Horne                   Hosey                   Howard
Huggins                 King                    Knight
Limehouse               Loftis                  Long
Lowe                    Lucas                   Mack
McCoy                   McEachern               McLeod
Merrill                 Mitchell                D. C. Moss
V. S. Moss              Munnerlyn               Nanney
J. M. Neal              Neilson                 Norman
Owens                   Parker                  Parks
Patrick                 Pope                    Putnam
Quinn                   Rutherford              Ryan
Sabb                    Sandifer                Simrill
Skelton                 G. R. Smith             J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith             Sottile                 Southard
Spires                  Stavrinakis             Stringer
Tallon                  Taylor                  Thayer
Toole                   Tribble                 Weeks
Whipper                 Whitmire                Williams
Willis                  Young

                               Total--104

  [HJ]                           137
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Those who voted in the negative are:

                                Total--0

  The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having
received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be
changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

    H. 4005--SENATE AMENDMENTS CONCURRED IN AND
                    BILL ENROLLED
  The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for
consideration:

  H. 4005 -- Reps. Corbin, Hardwick, Stringer, Loftis, Ryan,
Bannister, Agnew, Barfield, V. S. Moss, Thayer, Murphy, Hearn,
Norman, Gambrell, Sottile, Limehouse, Chumley, Bikas, Crawford,
Clemmons, Crosby, Daning, Delleney, Hamilton, Hayes, Hixon,
Hodges, D. C. Moss, Nanney, Owens, Patrick, Pinson, Pitts, Pope,
Simrill, G. R. Smith, J. R. Smith, Tallon, Taylor, White and Young: A
BILL TO AMEND SECTION 39-25-20, CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TERMS AND THEIR
DEFINITIONS REGARDING ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED
FOOD AND COSMETICS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION
FOR THE TERM "HONEY" AND TO PROVIDE LABELING
REQUIREMENTS FOR HONEY.

  Rep. FRYE explained the Senate Amendments.

  The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
                           Yeas 102; Nays 0

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                  Allen                     Allison
Anderson               Anthony                   Atwater
Bales                  Bannister                 Barfield
Battle                 Bedingfield               Bingham
Bowen                  Bowers                    Brady
Branham                Brannon                   Brantley
G. A. Brown            R. L. Brown               Butler Garrick
Chumley                Clemmons                  Cole
Corbin                 Crawford                  Crosby

  [HJ]                           138
                  THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

Daning                  Delleney                 Dillard
Edge                    Erickson                 Forrester
Frye                    Gambrell                 Gilliard
Hardwick                Harrell                  Harrison
Hart                    Hayes                    Hearn
Herbkersman             Hiott                    Hixon
Hodges                  Horne                    Hosey
Huggins                 Jefferson                King
Knight                  Limehouse                Loftis
Long                    Lowe                     Lucas
Mack                    McCoy                    McEachern
McLeod                  Mitchell                 D. C. Moss
V. S. Moss              Munnerlyn                Nanney
J. M. Neal              Neilson                  Norman
Owens                   Parker                   Parks
Patrick                 Pinson                   Pope
Putnam                  Quinn                    Rutherford
Ryan                    Sabb                     Sandifer
Simrill                 Skelton                  G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith             J. R. Smith              Sottile
Southard                Spires                   Stavrinakis
Stringer                Tallon                   Taylor
Thayer                  Toole                    Tribble
Weeks                   Whipper                  Whitmire
Williams                Willis                   Young

                               Total--102

Those who voted in the negative are:

                                Total--0

  The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having
received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be
changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

                        MOTION PERIOD
  The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. PUTNAM.




  [HJ]                           139
                 THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

                      S. 435--RECOMMITTED
  The following Bill was taken up:

  S. 435 -- Senators Elliott, Bryant, Campbell, Ford and Campsen: A
BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-1-180 SO AS TO REQUIRE
LOCAL        GOVERNMENTAL               ENTITIES,        AGENCIES,
ORGANIZATIONS, OR INDIVIDUALS THAT RECEIVE,
COLLECT, OR SPEND PUBLIC FUNDS DERIVED FROM STATE
OR LOCAL TAX REVENUE TO FILE PERIODIC EXPENDITURE
REPORTS WITH THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY OR AGENCY THAT PROVIDED, COLLECTED, OR
SPENT THE PUBLIC FUNDS.

 Rep. LIMEHOUSE moved to recommit the Bill to the Committee on
Ways and Means, which was agreed to.

                 H. 4095--DEBATE ADJOURNED
  The following Bill was taken up:

  H. 4095 -- Reps. Pitts, Lucas, Loftis and Corbin: A BILL TO
AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY
ADDING SECTION 63-15-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF JOINT
CUSTODY OF A CHILD IS AWARDED TO THE PARENTS,
THERE IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT BOTH
PARENTS HAVE JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD;
TO PROVIDE THAT THE PRESUMPTION MAY BE OVERCOME
BY PRESENTING CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE CHILD; TO REQUIRE THE PARENTS TO SUBMIT A
PARENTING PLAN TO THE COURT REFLECTING PARENTAL
PREFERENCES AND AGREEMENT ON MATTERS OF
SUBSTANCE; AND TO PROVIDE THAT PARENTS SHARE
DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR
IMPORTANT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE CHILD'S WELFARE
AND THAT WHEN AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED THE
PARENTS SHALL SUBMIT TO MEDIATION WITH A
PRESELECTED MEDIATOR.

  Rep. WILLIS moved to adjourn debate on the Bill until Tuesday,
January 24, which was agreed to.

  [HJ]                         140
                THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

  Rep. HIXON moved that the House do now adjourn, which was
agreed to.

                          ADJOURNMENT
  At 10:57 a.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep.
TALLON, adjourned in memory of Ann T. Berline of Spartanburg, to
meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
                               ***




  [HJ]                       141
                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012

H. 3095 .......................... 136         H. 4588 .......................... 125
H. 3124 .......................... 134         H. 4589 .......................... 119
H. 3236 .......................... 132         H. 4590 .......................... 123
H. 3495 .......................... 132         H. 4591 .......................... 123
H. 4005 .......................... 138         H. 4592 .......................... 126
H. 4082 .......................... 131         H. 4593 .......................... 126
H. 4095 .......................... 140         H. 4594 .......................... 127
H. 4154 .......................... 132         H. 4595 .......................... 128
H. 4243 .......................... 133         H. 4596 .......................... 128
H. 4420 .......................... 130         H. 4597 .......................... 120
H. 4424 .......................... 131         H. 4598 .......................... 121
H. 4442 .......................... 131         H. 4599 .......................... 121
H. 4458 .......................... 131         H. 4600 .......................... 122
H. 4460 .......................... 131         H. 4601 .......................... 122
H. 4472 .......................... 118         H. 4602 .......................... 124
H. 4477 .......................... 131
H. 4515 .......................... 131         S. 258 ............................. 132
H. 4586 .......................... 124         S. 391 ............................. 133
H. 4587 .................. 125, 131            S. 435 ............................. 140




[HJ]                                     142

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:3/9/2012
language:
pages:143